Instigator / Pro
seldiora's avatar
0
seldiora
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2626

On DART, the "winner selection" system is superior to the "four points" system.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Tags
Miscellaneous
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 month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
fauxlaw's avatar
1
fauxlaw
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Superior in terms of what? Accuracy and reliability when deciding the winner. Quality of votes. So on and so forth.

Round 1
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#1
My argument is simple, and similar to thett3's. In real life, we only vote on who we think won. (prime example: presidential debate) The arbitrary assignment of spelling/grammar, along with sources can result in bad votes, even on DART, despite usually higher quality of votes. If a bad voter wanted to, they could easily sway the points in one way or another and justify it based on very small details that do not matter at all.

You merely have to point out even a few typos to give spelling/grammar, and even one source's difference can result in the problem of completely overturning an argument. You see, the presidential debate gives a perfect example of why the arbitrary assignment of points may be absurd. Anti-Trump democrats could easily overturn the 50% ratio by noting how Trump continuously interrupted Biden, which is bad conduct, and so give him 1 point over and over again. But at the end of the day, it's impressive to win a debate even if you have to somewhat insult the opponent, and the voters are aware that your personality is bad. So even the conduct point's fundamental is not truly justified. 

Look at an example. Even Ragnar, one of the site's forefront debaters and voters, made an arguable mistake with the sources voting on one of Oromagi's debates. Now granted, Oromagi did win the debate. But imagine I was the only voter, and I tied arguments while giving sources for same reasoning as Ragnar. There would be mayhem on the side of Athias. Is failure to support merely one claim truly defeating in terms of "sources"? It's difficult to say for sure. It's easy to miss out on one single claim in such a long debate, and it's very easy to copy paste your source in the comments if this truly was an issue. But Ragnar stood by his vote despite Athias's attempt to rebuke him. 

In addition, separating sources from argument still seems arbitrary overall. Am I better if I have more sources? Am I better if I have more trustworthy sources? And aren't my arguments inherently as good as my sources? For example, let's say I claimed that QAnon is true, and used Q himself as a source. As he has been repeatedly refuted by various news sources, regardless of how good my "arguments" are, Q himself is terribly unreliable and so my argument would completely fall apart. What's the point of giving points to sources, at all? Will the voters really differentiate between using scholarly sources, and news sources? It's hard to say for sure. If some news are reliable enough as a research paper, then it shouldn't matter. And if one person decides only to vote on arguments while another votes on all four categories, this will give their vote more weight, based on the arbitrary standards. At the end of the day, "winner selection" requires more thought overall and is only based on arguments, which is what debating is about. Consider that, in I can I BB, a Chinese entertainment debate show, the relationship topics require zero sources to argue well, and people greatly enjoy the entertainment of logic clashing against logic. "Select winner" works in all cases, while 4 point system only works if the voters are very, very good, unbiased, and do not abuse this system.
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#2
I Rebuttal: So on and so forth
 
I.a On what and where forth? I’ll begin with the last qualifier of the resolution because it represent absurdity rather than mere insufficiency. The last qualifier is a couple of prepositions that are dangling, not in the sense that they are syntactically inappropriate, but that they are logically ill. There is no possible argument, pro or con, that can adequately quantify or qualify the accuracy and reliability of “so on and so forth,” so I clam this is a fallacious addition to the list of qualifiers to either type of debate voting models.
 
II Rebuttal: Accuracy
 
II.a Pro argues the winner selection system is more accurate than the DA debate voting point system model. Accuracy is defined in Merriam-Webster as: “freedom from mistake or error: Correctness”[1] It is a lowest-common-denominator of comparison. When 4 is the desired result of a mathematic equation of addition, 2+2 is the more accurate formula of elements than 2+3. Half of the two elements is correct, but not both. But if a teacher awards accuracy to a student for being half-right, neither the student, nor teacher, have benefitted themselves. Whereas, in the four-point voting system, a voter will have the wherewithal to assign the 2+2 elements as more accurate than the 2+3 elements, and thereby award points of specific, not general accuracy. The four-point system, therefore, is more accurate than the winner selection system.
 
III Rebuttal: Reliability
 
III.a Pro argues the winner selection system is more reliable than the DA debate voting point system model. Accuracy is defined in Merriam-Webster as: “giving the same result on successive trials.”[2] Again, it is a lowest-common-denominator of comparison. In science, it is essential that repeated trials of an experiment have repeated results in order to prove a theorem. The same measurements must be performed using the same method, and the same tools on the measured piece, whatever it may be, and the tools must be of a precision capability that is at least ten times the precision of the allowed tolerance of variation. This will prove both accuracy and reliability., such as using a pair of micrometers capable of a rated accuracy of ±0.0001 to measure a feature that is ±0.001 allowed tolerance. A winner selection system will accept 0.001, regardless of the measurement accuracy. A four-point system will understand the necessity of the precision of 0.0001 to obtain reliable results.
 
III Rebuttal: Quality of votes
 
III.a Pro argues the winner selection system is of greater quality than the DA debate voting point system model. However, is quality satisfied with an accuracy of 2+3 more than 2+2 when the desired result must be 4? Is quality satisfied if the reliability requires precision of 4 ±0.1, but the argument can only offer 4 ±1? Quality is determined by the designer and the customer, but cannot be the determination of the producer. Quality requires more than customer satisfaction; it requires customer delight.[3] In debate, the customer is the voter. Mere satisfaction will not cut it. Voters must be delighted by performance in four specific area points: argument, sourcing, spelling & grammar, and conduct. That exemplifies delight. These are the evidence of superior accuracy, reliability, and quality. Winner selection can only offer a non-descript satisfaction by comparison.
 
III.b What has each debater learned from a winner selection system? Not to mention the voter. They learn win or lose. In a four-point system, they learn why their arguments, sourcing, spelling and grammar, and conduct were superior or inferior. They can each take lessons from the experience to improve their performance in the next debate. That ability to teach [by the voter] and learn [by the debater] is a system that benefits both in the exercise of debating and voting. A win-win in my book.
 
 
 
 

Round 2
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#3
Con has completely failed to uphold why each and every part of the four point system is necessary and combines together to make it a better system than the winner selection system.

Dropped arguments:
- Arbitrary assignment of points allow bad votes to get through in 4 points, but not Winner selection
- Source and arguments are inherently linked together and have no reason to be separate
- In real life, you argue to win, not to have perfect grammar, conduct, and sources.

Rebuttals
I. So on and so forth: Whatever floats your boat. I was going to give you more room to argue but I guess you want me to frame the debate on my terms.

II Accuracy + Reliability: con is speaking of precision, not accuracy. You can be more precise in the four point argument, because you can technically rate their argument out of 7: you can give then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 points depending on how well they did in comparison to the opponent. However, I proved that the result will not be consistent, because I can arbitrarily assign 3 points if I don't want the debater I'm voting on to win sources, or I can give 5 points if I do want them to win sources. As the difference of 3 points and 5 points causes lack of consistency compared to 1 point given to the winner, clearly, winner selection is more accurate. Con thinks it is more reliable because the 0.0001 difference matters. Based on this logic, the best voting system possible is assigning 1 point to every single contention and argument raised. No, even better. Assign 1 point to every single sentence. Yes. Rate it on a fraction scale from 0 to 1 using any rational number. That'll satisfy voters. No. That won't. That's a horrible way to assign points, and pushing con's logic to the extreme makes for an absurd voting that makes zero sense whatsoever. He has not proved that the 0.1 points won because I spelled a word wrong is justifiable and reliable to assess my skill as a debater.

 Quality of votes: 
Voters must be delighted by performance in four specific area points: argument, sourcing, spelling & grammar, and conduct. That exemplifies delight. 
Nonsense, and what about real life debaters? Are you not delighted? Tell me, would you rather I ask you, "did you enjoy the movie overall?" Or would you rather me ask: "was the main character's acting satisfactory? How about the opening scene? And the next scene? And the climax? And the antagonist? and the music? And the storyline? And the execution of cinematography? And the side characters? and the romance....?" Too much choices, too much options, leads to a paradox that makes you UNSATISFIED. You would be utmost annoyed if I asked you a 100 question poll to decide if you really enjoyed the movie. You likely have a heuristic in mind that already allows you to know by heart, the answer to all these questions. If spelling, sources, and conduct really did matter, then winner vote would still reflect this, and defeat the four point system.

The resolution is upheld.
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#4
To correct a minor error of organization of thoughts in my R1, I have two section IIIs in the round. The latter should be IV. My apologies. It does not affect the arguments.
 
I Rebuttal: Accuracy & precision
 
I.a Pro argued, “…Con is speaking of precision, not accuracy,” adding that they are slightly different things. No argument, precision and accuracy do “mean slightly different things,” as his citation suggests. I suggest my argument was for accuracy, using precision as a qualifier, not as a separate argument.
 
I.a.1 I’ll note for the record that in my R1, argument III, I accidently identified the definition of Reliability as “Accuracy,” which was already defined in argument II. Please read that as “Reliability.”
 
I.b Pro argues “you can give then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 points depending on how well they did in comparison to the opponent,” and by so doing, supports my claim that the precision of seven separate point values that a voter can award to debate arguments, sources, spelling & grammar, and conduct is a far more accurate, reliable, qualified, and thus superior award than a mere win, or denial of those points to lose a debate. Therefore, Pro fails to justify his resolution.
 
I.c Pro argues against his own position in his R2, saying, “The arbitrary assignment of spelling/grammar, along with sources can result in bad votes, even on DART, despite usually higher quality of votes.”  A tilt to the Con perspective.
 
II Rebuttal: Nonsense 
 
II.a To my third citation of my R1, Pro criticizes “Nonsense” to my mention of customer delight vs. satisfaction, and uses a source, https://www.fastcompany.com/3031364/why-having-too-many-choices-is-making-you-unhappy   as an attempt to demonstrate that too many choices bring unhappiness. The example in Pro’s citation is a shopping choice of over 1,000 different toilet brushes on Amazon. I’ll suggest that shopping is not the primary aim of debate. I’ll suggest one word: priorities. Any one who has time to drift through Amazon’s thousand toilet brushes has, one, a boring life, and two, too much idle time on their hands, as if a voter’s task in judging a debate occupies too much of their time. One need merely read through the Dart Voting Policy recommendations on voting with the four-point system to realize the simplicity of addressing each of the four points to determine whether Pro or Con has the superior use of these points. The judgment composes itself, which is the typical result of proper process problem solving by finding root cause.[1] This is nonsense? To one befuddled by problem solving, perhaps. Befuddlement does not win an argument, nor does it justify a resolution. Pro fails.
 
III Defense: Drops?
 
III.a Pro accused my drop of three arguments in my R1. I’ll address each charge:
 
III.a.1 Four-point allows bad votes: My defense: R1, arguments II.a, III.a, IV.a, IV.b. Add that voters can vote poorly by awarding a win that should have been a loss, and vice versa. However, Pro completely ignores that any vote by any voter in any debate can be challenged by anyone eligible to vote by reported appeal to the Mods in order to address perceived bad votes. That includes, thus does not discriminate against the debaters doing so.
 
III.a.2 Source and arguments are inherently linked: Review Pro’s R1 argument. There is but one commentary offered using both terms together in a sentence in which they are “arbitrarily linked.” That is: “In addition, separating sources from argument still seems arbitrary overall.” I suggest that Pro is not arguing their linkage, but that their separation is arbitrary. But, according to DArt Voting Policy,[2] while the four-point system clearly [not arbitrarily, as if there was a choice in the matter to link them, or not] distinguishes them separately. Whereas, in Winner Selection,[3] while “argument” is mentioned eight times, “source” is not mentioned at all. The separation is not arbitrary, it is absolute. Pro’s challenge fails.
 
III.a.3 In real life…  I appreciate Pro’s distinction of real life and DArt activity, but I remind readers/voters that Pro has defined the environment of theresolution distinctly as “On DART,” which is a separate environment [and not arbitrary] than real life, and I suggest Pro remain within the confines of his defined resolution.
 
 
 

Round 3
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#5
Fauxlaw says:
 supports my claim that the precision of seven separate point values that a voter can award to debate arguments, sources, spelling & grammar, and conduct is a far more accurate, reliable, qualified, and thus superior award than a mere win, or denial of those points to lose a debate
I don't know how I support his point at all. If I can award 7 points to one person justifiably and you can also reward 7 points to the other, the difference is 14 points of accuracy, while winner selection's difference is 2 point at most (1 point to the loser vs 1 point to the winner). 

One need merely read through the Dart Voting Policy recommendations on voting with the four-point system to realize the simplicity of addressing each of the four points to determine whether Pro or Con has the superior use of these points. 
Despite being more strict than DDO's policy, as demonstrated in Ragnar's vote, merely one singular claim can still justify the vote and make it arbitrary who actually won.

Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
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
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
So I could still easily say, hey, this guy used a scholarly source for Premise 1, and the opposing guy only used a news article. So I'm going to arbitrarily vote sources merely because argument 1 seemed more reliable. That's bad voting for sure.

Similarly, spelling and grammar has not been justified to truly impact the debate, and the voting guide is still ambiguous, allowing me to potentially point out one single error in con's argument to justify voting spelling and grammar.

Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
For instance, plugging in Con's round into Grammarly results in 12 errors (http://prntscr.com/viouma). I have 15 errors (http://prntscr.com/viovf7) Is this too much? We don't know. I could certainly be able to understand his argument. He was able to understand my argument rather than dismiss it completely. But maybe it's enough to indict a spelling point in my favor. If someone seriously wanted me to lose he could point this out and say, wow, 15 errors out of 5,000 characters. That's too much. Grammarly says it's only a passing grade. Therefore it's a bad argument. The resulting appeal to authority and assignment of misspelling to discredit an entire logic reasoning is a horrible idea. Logic is logic, even if I accidentally misspell something. Tell me, is inductive reasoning any less logical if I make some grammar mistakes?

P1: All man is mortal. (should be, all men are mortal)
P2: Socrat is a man. (should be, Socrates is a man. But it's plausible that someone out there may be named Socrat)
C1: Socrat is mortall. (should be, Socrates is mortal. Despite the misspelling you can perfectly understand this argument).

It has been widely known that even if I scrambled all the letters, you can still understand the context and ideas of my arguments. Of course, this is a bad practice if I did this my entire debate. But merely some claims being misspelled or lacking grammar does not negate the validity of my argument. The Cambridge University research is still as strong as ever, scrambled or not.

 any debate can be challenged by anyone eligible to vote by reported appeal to the Mods in order to address perceived bad votes. 
Yet Ragnar's vote was sufficient enough.

while “argument” is mentioned eight times, “source” is not mentioned at all.
It's plausible that the DART members were in a hurry and forgot to mention sources. As previously stated though, mere logic is enough in a lot of debate topics, especially concerning morality, philosophy, logic and relationships.

 a separate environment [and not arbitrary] than real life
Does not negate the standards set by reality. Tell me, if DART looked like twwwe.com, it would be horrible, no? We have set standards for websites. We have set standards for debate. What reasoning does Con have to escape this standard that we have, agreed upon with hundreds of years of debating?
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#6
I Defense: Award points
 
I.a Pro claims: “If I can award 7 points to one person justifiably and you can also reward 7 points to the other…”  and yet claims, “I don't know how I support his point at all.”  A read of the four-point system is sufficient, and a glance at the voting page in such a debate set-up clearly indicates there is a total of 7 points per round per voter. Yes, that is a potential 14-point swing between two voters to distribute between Pro and Con, and that also includes textual justification for the votes in each of the four points. The text provides superior information to debaters, other voters, and readers regarding the debate. A simple win/lose designation, a two-point potential swing between voters offers no assistance to a debater, or a voter, for future improvement. I claim the superior position on this argument.
 
II Argument: Where is reliability and quality?
 
II.a I’ll raise this now as complete drops by Pro, considering that Pro has not forbidden argument in the last round. I waited until now, having observed one-third of Pro’s Description drop in R1, and it has continued through R3. Pro identified accuracy, reliability, and quality as three specific points of superiority in winner selection. Another third was dropped in all three rounds by lack of argument re: quality. Pro mentioned “quality of voting” in round 1 and round 3, but never argued the point further. than the mentions. To drop two-thirds of one’s intended argument and expect voters to grant the superior argument in this debate is a big ask. I consider the drops as a fail for Pro. I claim the superior position having argued all three points in the favor of a four-point voting system.
 
III. Defense: Arbitrary who won: Ragnar’s vote 
 
III.a Pro argues that one voter can create an outlier vote on a particular point, and sway the vote to Pro or Con. That’s the breaks with a single voter, and it affects the winner selection method as well. I have supported [and actually officially launched the suggestion] to create a body of volunteer voters to assure that no debate suffers the paucity of a single voter outcome with mods to address. I await policy resolution on the suggestion. In the meantime, with multiple voters, the outlier vote has reduced effect and, in fact, there’s a lesser effect having four factors of decision than only two. I therefore claim the superior position on this matter.
 
IV Defense: A scholar has less reliability than a journalist 
 
IV.a Really? Sure, the way education is leaning in this country [USA] placing more dumb-down-emphasis on feeling good about one’s self than the knowledge one can acquire and use [wisdom, and, therefore scholarship, making practical use of knowledge] that may, one day, be a reality. We’ll talk, then. For now, any practical voter should prefer the reliability of a scholar’s work than that of a journalist in what passes for journalism in 2020 America. Tell me, really, what scholarship is in a TV journalists’ report that the protest observed is peaceful when the camera sees a wall of buildings on fire behind the alleged journalist.[1],[2]
 
IV Defense: S&G grief
 
IV.a Pro’s grief over S&G is easily calmed by reading the Dart Voting Policy on S&G. “S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.”  That says, simply, that nit-pick spelling errors that still render the text coherent and comprehensible should not be called out. Problem solved.  If voters don’t read their instructions, do we claim the four-point system is inferior? No, we read the instructions and follow them. Elementary; Pro’s syllogism, notwithstanding. Socrates could be Mel, and the logic holds.
 
V Rebuttal: Plausibility
 
V.a Plausibility notwithstanding, what is written is what it is. The entire Debate section of Help Center[3]says it is “**OUTDATED**. Do we, therefore, ignore it? It’s plausible it will be updated. But what is written is what it is. 
 
These last three points are desperate straws grasped when the drink is already consumed. Read cows out the barn door, and then the doors are closed.
 
Vote for Con, who actually argued accuracy, reliability, and quality.