Resolved: DebateArt.com should eliminate the Four Points point system.

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

A. It isn’t sufficient because it isn’t always obvious to voters.

B. Debaters can lie and voters are no longer expected to fact-check, so may take the lazier option.

3. Having dyslexia or other mental disorders is not a justification for bad grammar.

4. Deducting points based on atrocious grammar and spelling motivates debaters to put effort into their writing.

5. Readability and legibility don’t necessarily make or break your debate, but they are prioritized.

3. Autism isn’t a free pass for ignorance.

4. Conduct isn’t as important as arguments and sources

A. Improve Debate Quality

B. Assess and fix shortcomings

C. Promote accountability

D. Encourage objectivity

E. Discourage bad behavior

A. Lazy debates

B. More ad hominem attacks.

C. Less evidence pertaining to peer-reviewed research

D. Sloppy writing

E. Biased voting

F. Popularity contests

“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. 

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

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.

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.

3. Therefore, if you get rid of it, more debaters are more likely to be successful in their lies.

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.

1. Using the Win-Loss isn’t giving them a fairer advantage, it’s just imposing an alternate system of punishment.

2. If their disability requires extra help, then a spell-checker is necessary, so it is 100% worth evaluating.

3. Voters are usually forgiving of typos, so most homophone errors will go overlooked.

4. Non-native English speakers can use a variety of translators + grammar check in order to write the most legible argument.

5. Since there is no evidence of neurodivergent people leaving the site, treat this as an unsubstantiated claim.

6. The 4 points system enforces the value system.

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.

1. Debate sites have a rule and custom which serves as the middle ground of expectations for all cultures to adhere and abide by.

2. How are they punished harshly if Conduct falls lower on the 4 Points hierarchy?

1. Soccer is not a valid comparison.

• 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.
  

• 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. 
  

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.

• 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.

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.

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.
  

• Removing the 4 Points System is actually limiting users' rights to choose.
  

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.

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.

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.

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.
  

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.

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. 
  

The Burden of Proof requires Pro to demonstrate that DebateArt should remove the 4-point system.

He can only do this in two ways.:

1. Objectively weigh the pros and cons and declare that the cons outweigh the pros.
   
2. Prove the need to abolish it.
   

Objectively weigh the pros and cons and declare that the cons outweigh the pros.

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.

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.

7. Sources need to be there for voters to judge anyway

1. Pro yielded a lot of ground in the previous rounds.
   
2. Most of his arguments are un-supported, unsubstantiated claims. 
   

• 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. 
  

• 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. 
  

1. The Freedom To Choose.
   
2. Majority Preference.
   
3. Value System. 
   
4. Accountability & Motivation. 
   

To get an understanding of how weak Pro’s case is, we need to analyze where it went wrong. 

1. Pro yielded a lot of ground in the previous rounds.
   
2. 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.: 

1. The Freedom To Choose.
   
2. Majority Preference.
   
3. Value System. 
   
4. Accountability & Motivation. 
   

Vote CON.

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. 

1. There is no anecdotal or empirical evidence.
   
2. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
   
3. The BOP falls on the person making the claim, not the person questioning it.