Is it just me, or are debates not getting enough votes?
Like, how in the world did I tie this debate????
And I'm sure it's not just me.
Is there a fix to this problem?
Are debates getting enough votes?
Posts
Total:
42
-->
@DynamicSquid
Is there a fix to this problem?
Yes, but it will never be implemented.
Imagine you amble into the debate forum, see a debate that looks interesting, and vote on it.
Hold on there squid.
There is a clique of liberal members, some of them mods, who spring into action if the conditions are right.
If your vote goes against a clique member, your vote gets reported. A mod comes in and either reduces or removes your vote. If the mod cannot credibly change your vote enough to put the liberal debater in the lead, the mod himself (or another clique member) instantly votes, putting their friend back in the lead.
If you are a known conservative, your vote gets reported. A mod comes in and either reduces or removes your vote. If the mod cannot credibly change your vote enough to put the debater you did not vote for in the lead, the mod himself (or another clique member) instantly votes, putting their friend back in the lead.
How many times do you think this can happen before members know voting is a waste of time?
The same people wonder why so many members spend their time only in the forums.
Look at the leaderboard. Virtually all the mods have a 100% win ratios. The mods that don't are new and will be shooting up shortly. The rest of the top are clique members.
Now sort the board by number of votes with most votes on top. The first half of the first page is mods and clique members.
The debate forum has only a few people going around repeatedly voting for each other. Like a cabal.
The mods and the "elites" will never voluntarily let this system go. Mike has shown he isn't interested in board operations. So, short another cataclysmic change, the debate board will remain the same.
Ways to mitigate the problem:
If you are a conservative:
Do not debate or vote against clique members. Unless you just enjoy losing.
Do not vote or debate against touchstone liberal positions. Unless you enjoy wasting your time.
Debate only members who have given no indication whatsoever their religious or political leanings. Noobs are best.
Debate only topics that are impossible to classify as liberal or conservative. Like, "Are Babies Cute?"
If you are liberal:
Go wild. As long as you do not debate a clique member, you're going to win.
Find conservatives or theists and challenge them on the most absurd liberal talking points, like, "Can Babies Be Aborted 50 Years After Birth?" Have no fear, you'll win.
Go to a few debates by clique members and vote for them, and they will return the favor to you. Do that often enough and they might invite you into their clique, then watch your elo rise!
This isn't a solution but its the next best thing. Happy debating!
-->
@DynamicSquid
Ragnar and myself are generally the most active voters - I normally prep votes while on the bus in the morning/evening, pooping, or when I have a particular complex software build that takes time that I can’t spend elsewhere. As I’m driving now, I have been given an extra workstation; it’s down to poop time only, which I normally try and spend on other urgent web related business.
Ragnar is now a mod, which takes up a lot of his times
To get votes, the best way is to try and mention it in the debate request section. I’m hoping to run a debate tournament too shortly, which could help.
-->
@DynamicSquid
You didn't tie it, you lost it. You are lucky Trent voted at all.
ethang is 100% CORRECT
Wow... well, I guess it's the same everywhere, huh? :D
-->
@DynamicSquid
I do not have enough time to vote on these debates and give full RFD's on everything. I have done votes when I am free, but school is getting in the way of me doing debates and voting. I am going to get into debating more since of the new rough draft feature implemented, but voting is just hard for me to do at this point of time if it is not FF.
There are debates that get votes. This site is also relatively small, so not every debate gonna flood
There are debates that get votes. This site is also relatively small, so not every debate gonna flood
-->
@ethang5
@Dr.Franklin
Could it not be that mods vote frequently and win often because they are skilled and highly committed to this site?
And could it not be that, as you put it, "conservative" viewpoints often lose because their proponents are poor debaters, or simply because the "conservative" position can't stand up in logical debate?
I have considered the "cabal" scenario, too. Viewed through a cynical lens, mods certainly do look like a self-interested cabal. But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?
What if the mods are reasonably fair, intelligent, and dedicated to the site, and you just happen to lose often because you are not a good debater, and/or your positions are logically inferior?
I haven’t had the kind of time I used to, so I’ve slowed down on voting. Each of my votes takes quite a while to write out, and I’d rather do fewer than spend less time going through and analyzing each debate on which I vote. That being said, I have been pretty consistent in voting on debates when asked and reminded.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
That's interesting, could you give us some good examples of it? Ones where a conservative won the arguments, yet was voted against and lost in the end?
I haven't read many debates, but I would like to examine a few good ones and see if that seems true or not.
Also, I could imagine Conservatives losing a few debates from being too practical, not spelling things out enough for their opponent. They might expect their opponent to get their logic and be surprised when they don't, or go against it.
I could also imagine Conservatives losing because it seems that conservative positions are harder to debate.
Left-wing sources are often counted as more reliable than they are, and right-wing ones less.
And the Left-wing position is often a relatively nihilistic position, which is easier to debate as well. I also think leftists also tend to define things in favor of their own views.
Rationalistic positions, the ones (or most of them at least, and R does it a little more extreme and agrees with a little bit better positions than just those ones) RationalMadman supports are often simply just easier to debate. I see all of his positions to be similar to debater's positions, which is part of the reason why I voted for him in the Hall of Fame. He's sort of the embodiment of Rationalism and also the desire to debate.
-->
@ethang5
I meant to direct that to Ethgang.
-->
@LordLuke
This type of accusation goes round all the time. There’s little basis in it. If you look at the lowest scoring debaters on the site - Type1 and Billbatard, the latter is solely liberal and solely espouses liberal debate. He also loses so much because he’s a bad debater.
Theres been some conservatives on the site, Alec and Our boat is right - both are okay debaters; Alec used to be #1 at one point, and both have recorded good wins on conservative points of view. There are a few “troll” conservative accounts - there’s a lot that simply copy and paste arguments from elsewhere; and get penalized.
There’s been a few abortion debates - I actually have a tendency to vote pro life on these as it’s easier to frame the argument for pro life; and many Individuals I’ve seen simply argue bad points for the pro choice side, with a few exceptions.
The “cabal” is basically highlighting the fact that Oromagi, myself and Ragnar are at the top of the board. Oromagi is objectively a great debater; he covers all his basis very well, and ends up getting voted for as a result, there’s one example where he didn’t get my vote related to electrical air craft, and my vote there explains the slip up he made and why.
If I recall, at some point last years Ethang made the same accusation that I only voted for liberals and atheists in debates - and still continued to make that same claim even after I posted dozens of debate links showing my votes for conservatives and theists.
In general, I think we can all acknowledge that we may be imperfect, and I may have missed things in debates or messed up a vote: but in reality thus far it’s just a lot of accusations with no one really being able to point out exactly what part of the vote was wrong or unfair or why. I wouldn’t trust anyone’s accusations that don’t specifically mention a vote, and clearly specify how that vote indicates unfairness.
-->
@whiteflame
Good to see a friendly face. Still as perpetually busy as before?
-->
@Ramshutu
Well, I'm glad to know that you guys are trying to be impartial. Although in today's world, honestly, I acknowledge that as a conservative and especially as a Christian, I'm fighting from a disadvantage, so to speak.
-->
@Zaradi
Good to see you as well. Yeah, nearing the end of this wild ride that has been my PhD, so there's a lot to do in order to wrap up. Good news is that I think my timeline is doable, so it's just a matter of doing it.
-->
@Joshua1
I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm neither of those things, but many of the best arguments I've heard come from Christian conservatives. It's a matter of how you support them and the ways you approach reaching your audience. The problems really only become apparent if you dig in too deeply on biases rather than focusing on the objective merits of your case.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
They are great debators HOWEVER I believe they are biased voters, liberals get free passes on debates, notably Our_Boat_is_right debates
-->
@Ramshutu
I'd think it'd be easier to vote pro-choice in an abortion debate.
Isn't an abortion debate essentially or at least typically a debate about whether or not it is moral to kill unborm babies?
Because of the nature of the debate, simply not considering immoral to kill unborn babies ought not to be considered kritiking, and therefore the burden of proof is on the pro-lifer. It is up to them to prove that you ought not to kill unborn babies and that morality comes into play in the debate.
That would be hard to do in my opinion and also require much specification to sound perfectly coherent.
-->
@LordLuke
I can see where you're coming from, but I actually share Ramshutu's view on this. When it comes to an abortion debate, there are two things that we recognize without anything being said:
1. The unborn are being killed, and
2. The choice exists to do so
My view (and I think this is broadly shared by many in the debate community) is that bodies on the flow are a big problem for the side that is defending their continued existence. Those are lives lost, and it's very simple to make the argument that lives are important. That's automatically a big impact, whereas the impact of lost choice is a lot more nebulous and vague. We can all agree that choice is important, but weighing that value is not so simple. So, when one side comes into the debate with a very easily weighed impact of lives lost vs. another side that is advocating for choice (something we don't have infinite rights to access in all instances), I'd say the first side is in better shape from the outset. I'd go so far as to say that they're in a lot better shape. I'm personally pro-choice, and therefore I do find those arguments more convincing, but within the context of an objective debate, I think they start off in a weaker position.
Now, you talk about burden of proof, and while I'd say that's dependent on the resolution, even if we assume the pro-life side has it, I don't see that as a problem. At least from my perspective, the burden of proof in a net benefits debate is to show that your position is net beneficial. That's it. Since showing that it's net harmful automatically nets the other side the debate, regardless of the burdens, that means that burdens really only affect this debate in the really unlikely circumstance where it's unclear there's any net benefit or harm. I don't see that as a heavy burden. I've seen arguments made for why the burden needs to be higher than that, but the opponent would have to provide some pretty persuasive points to show that those burdens should be increased. That's not an automatic thing. As for morality coming into the debate, I'd say it plays a role, but the debate doesn't solely hinge on morality. You could stay away from a values-based debate almost entirely and still win it on either side. That's what I do when I argue the pro-choice side - I talk almost entirely about the feasibility of implementing pro-life policies. Pro-life is a little more reliant on the moral debate, though I've heard arguments that manage to take it out of the subjective realm.
-->
@LordLuke
The issue with abortion debates is broadly covered by WF above; it’s why you’ll find going back on my vote history I tend to go for pro life way more than pro choice - even though my personal beliefs are opposite. (Which is in part why I lol at these sort of claims of bias by people like Ethang)
The issue of framing is that regardless of what else happens, abortion fundamentally involves killing unborn humans, and that’s an immediate substantial harm that has to be overcome. Most people tend to focus on mitigate this particular harm - but even if motivate it’s still a harm; which means that they need to really sell the particular benefit as being better than harming the unborn.
The one debate I do recall voting pro choice is based upon basically rendering that harm mostly irrelevant (but also mitigated), by focusing on the relegation of women to property without any bodily autonomy; it’s not that the harm is better or worse, but irrelevant.
Also, for the moderation teams here, I'd be willing to start voting immediately but I haven't finished two debates on this site. I have close to 300 done on DDO, however, and people like whiteflame can testify that I know what I'm doing when it comes to voting.
-->
@Zaradi
The voting restriction is a blanket restriction out in place due to a debate where an individual started creating alt accounts just to vote on debates; we can’t gaurentee to be able to detect such accounts so placed a limit on there.
I don’t know whether we can make a special exemption for people that came from DDO (I’m not sure if that’s the case), however the limits were set low enough to be fairly achievable; so I’m sure it won’t take long to get your posts count up.
If it helps, the best way to make it to 100 posts is to try and get the last word in an argument with me.
-->
@Ramshutu
What's the post requirement?
-->
@Ramshutu
Wait, nevermind apparently I dont know how to read. Eesh,i might as well just play a game of mafia.
-->
@Zaradi
Go argue in the religion forum?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Could it not be that mods vote frequently and win often because they are skilled and highly committed to this site?
For some of them, yes. But notice that becoming a mod will suddenly raise the elo of some mods. Does becoming a mod increase ones debate skills?
And could it not be that, as you put it, "conservative" viewpoints often lose because their proponents are poor debaters, or simply because the "conservative" position can't stand up in logical debate?
That has not been my experience anywhere in the real world. The people who win here, win because of the people who vote, and the people who vote almost always vote for the liberal position, or against the known theist/conservative.
I have considered the "cabal" scenario, too. Viewed through a cynical lens, mods certainly do look like a self-interested cabal.
It was even more so at DDO, and the same thing has begun here.
But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?
I probably could, but why would I go through the effort it would take? Especially when it would change nothing?
If you are a liberal, you'll think everything is fine, and your debate skills are great. If you are an honest liberal, you will have a gnawing feeling that perhaps your skills can't suddenly be that great.
If you are religious or conservative, you will know pretty quickly that the mods have latent bias against you.
What if the mods are reasonably fair, intelligent, and dedicated to the site, and you just happen to lose often because you are not a good debater, and/or your positions are logically inferior?
My positions are never logically inferior. But I don't, and have never debated. So this is not sour grapes from losing.
The mods are not evil, they have power and no oversight, and are in a mod echo chamber, with no conservative views. I don't think they realize what has happened, and if they have, rationalize it away because they don't really want to change anything.
Already, very few conservatives debate on the formal debate forum. Slowly, debate will die as it becomes only liberals debating liberals, the best debates are between people with very different views.
At DDO, the debate forum died long before the site itself died.
The same kind of thing is happening with traditional news media, as they shut out conservative views, they lose ratings, and cannot understand why fox and brightbart soar in the ratings.
To survive, debate sites need both liberals and conservatives, and the political leanings of mods should not be easily recognizable.
I would also say, have more varied political views among the mods, but that would not work. The majority of liberal mods would simply clique together and exile the few/lone conservative. If they could stomach a conservative on the team in the first place.
These things happen slowly, and without anyone knowingly trying to do it. Its just human nature. If the mod team was all conservative and the owner of the site the same, we would have the same problem, only with conservatives.
It takes objectivity to see ones own bias, and integrity to resist the sweet call of partisanship. The mods see that there is a problem, but have not yet accepted that it is the ethos of the site, which they initiated and now perpetuate.
Those were good questions Jeff.
-->
@LordLuke
interesting, could you give us some good examples of it? Ones where a conservative won the arguments, yet was voted against and lost in the end?
Yes I could, but that would only encourage drama as the voters would insist they were fair and correct. Votes are subjective, and mods know how to walk the fence so that claims of bias in any one vote is difficult to show, that is why I say look at the whole system. Look at the pattern of voting.
Why do we have more debaters than voters? Why so few conservative debaters and voters? Why do mod vote so often for their liberal co-mods?
I haven't read many debates, but I would like to examine a few good ones and see if that seems true or not.
So scroll through them. Some clique members may be good debaters, but all of them with a 100% win ratio? I've known them for years, they aren't that good.
On Dart, it isn't the good debaters who necessarily win, good networkers who get votes win.
Consider the case right now. Ram says he usually votes pro life. First, he substitutes "pro life" to mean conservative, it doesn't always. In an abortion debate, neither side need be liberal or conservative. For example, if the debate is whether aborting boy babies is worse than aborting girl babies, which is liberal? Yet its an "abortion debate".
I pointed out conditions under which the cabal clicks in, a debate with a known conservative, a debate with a clique member, a debate on a touchstone liberal POV. In debates not matching these criteria, the mod either doesn't vote or can vote strictly by who had the better argument, for that doesn't upset the standings. And it probably helps to mask their bias.
Thus Ram knows he can be right that he votes pro life on some debates, and still be part of a liberal cabal skewing voting. My claim and his are not contradictory, but he couches his claims as if they do counter mine.
He claims he posted dozens of links showing his votes for conservatives. This is like when atheists call Hitler a Christian. Ram's "conservative" moniker is dubious. And he did not post dozens of examples.
All he did to appear fair was post links to debates not with clique members and call one of the debaters "conservative".
Also, I could imagine Conservatives losing a few debates from being too practical, not spelling things out enough for their opponent.
True, but notice that the big boys have a win ratio of 100%. That isn't conservatives losing a "few" debates. That is them either not debating, or losing every single debate. Does that sound credible?
Scandal will come out in debate voting too. It's only a matter of time. I will be patient. I have no alternative anyway.
RationalMadman supports are often simply just easier to debate. I see all of his positions to be similar to debater's positions, which is part of the reason why I voted for him in the Hall of Fame. He's sort of the embodiment of Rationalism and also the desire to debate.
Overall, RM has been good for the debate form. He became more liberal after he noticed that being known as conservative, and or debating conservative positions was a loser. But he isn't part of the clique.
Squid noticed darth of voters. He brought up this thread. Others can see the problem too, even if they don't know the cause.
Though some will feel attacked, I'm not attacking people, the system is bad. Things will deteriorate till the problem is fixed. So I will wait. After the horse dies, someone posting "dozens" of links showing how healthy it is won't matter.
-->
@ethang5
@LordLuke
@Jeff_Goldblum
@DynamicSquid
@Squid,
I hate to say debate outcomes are subjective, but sometimes they are. I've only glanced at the debate in question, so I don't know for sure how I would have voted. Based on your organizational structure your case might have fallen just short of BoP, but your opponent's argument looked like an incomprehensible hot mess. I would guess I would have graded it a tie, but again, I've only glanced. Under a proposed change to the COC [1], I would have given you S&G...
As Ram explained, I just joined the moderation team, so am voting a lot less right now during the transition (plus there's some drama in my personal life; which does take priority over this hobby site).
@Jeff,
Well said!
Could it not be that mods vote frequently and win often because they are skilled and highly committed to this site?
@Luke,
For years I refused to award points on abortion debates (even for my preferred side), due to the strength of my prejudice. I still generally refrain. The saying check your privilege comes to mind, I like to check my bias.
@Ethang,
Full credit for making his conspiracy theory a valid (if unsound) theory. Most conspiracy theories fall short of even being hypotheses [2].
Sources:
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3147/post_links/132277
- http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
-->
@ethang5
A couple things struck me about your reply.
First, you implied that ELOs increase once someone becomes a mod, but you did not provide evidence.
Second, you quoted me as saying "But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?" To which you replied:
I probably could, but why would I go through the effort it would take? Especially when it would change nothing?
Well, for one, don't you want to believe true things? If you can't provide the evidence/data, how can you confidently hold the position you do? Also, I think you could effect change, if you went about it the right way. Which leads me to my third point of interest.
I'm not attacking people, the system is bad. Things will deteriorate till the problem is fixed. So I will wait. After the horse dies, someone posting "dozens" of links showing how healthy it is won't matter.
Have you proposed a solution? If you think there is a systemic problem, maybe there could be a systemic solution? Until you actually try to propose a change, how can you know trying is futile?
I remain skeptical that your basic position is true, but I am convinced you believe it's true. Furthermore, I can understand why conservative members of the site would share your concerns. On that understanding alone, I would be open hearing any proposals. If a proposal can make more members of the site feel more comfortable (without comprising the quality of the site), then I am all for it.
-->
@ethang5
Yes I could, but that would only encourage drama as the voters would insist they were fair and correct. Votes are subjective, and mods know how to walk the fence so that claims of bias in any one vote is difficult to show, that is why I say look at the whole system. Look at the pattern of voting.
If a person has a hundred percent record - it’s either because they’re very good debaters or they get substantially biased votes. Likewise, if a debater loses multiple debates, it’s either because they’re not great debaters, or because the votes are substantially biased.
So it would seem to me the way to establish that the former individuals are actually bad, or the other debaters are better - would be to show the voters are being biased and dishonest. I honestly can’t see how a bad debater could win against a better debater without the votes being visibly dishonest.
Given that you seem to acknowledge that you can’t (or won’t) show any votes are dishonest, it seems this option is pretty unlikely.
To be honest, I suspect there is little that facts will do to change your mind; when you accused me of only voting liberal and atheist - you continued to make those claims even after showing you 15 examples (out of around 30 - so 50%) of me voting against atheists and liberals. When raw data and facts are ignored, there’s little anyone can do.
Saying that, I’m always looking to improve; so I will say here and I said before - if you have a specific issue with any part of my vote on any debate, feel free to explain what it is and how it could have been improved, and I will be happy to take on board the criticism, or explain why I feel your criticism is subjective or false.