No-vote ties

Some of you may be aware that I personally oppose no-vote ties as a debate result. Most who debates typically spend a moderate-to-heavy amount of time in research to take a position and justify it. Their time expended deserves a response from voters. Generally, the system works, but, it is flawed in that we allow too many debates to conclude with no votes cast. I know, because I am party to 7 of them among my total of 10 ties. 70% of my tied debates are n.v.t. [no-vote tie] results. That leads the n.v.t. in the top 15 ranked debaters. 

Currently, there are 4 debates in voting with zero votes. I am participant in 3 of them, and 1 will expire in 1 day, so, my issue is not without foundation. Until recently, there were 9 no-vote debates, but I have voted on four of them. Most still have my single vote.  Since I cannot vote in my debates, and the other no-vote debate cannot vote on their debate, we depend on you. It does make a huge difference.

So, go vote already!!!!

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

The solution is really to have debates people want to read. 

Here is a list of Boeing subjects and how to fix them

1. Abortions are good

Change the name to something like

killing babies is good

, and debate that position instead. You will probably bv use similar arguments anyway, unless you get into person good, which you can always change the subject and talk about how to debate personhood by debating something like

"Coma patients should not be considered human"

1. God is real

Boring topic, done to often. Since you want to argue against the problem of evil anyway. Just be pro on the following  subject

"God was not behaving unethically by allowing the holocaust"

Ultimately you are debating the same thing, but one subject gets people wanting to read. 

3. Gun control

Being anti gun is weak. Nobody cares and we have heard all the arguments. A society where the population is not armed very well would require less cops to have guns, so instead argue the following

"We should disarm the police"

Now you can discuss how to make that work by bringing gun bans up.

If your debates lack votes, you need to stop debating boring things and make people want to read.

On top of debating fun subjects like listed, you also need to make your arguments fun and easy to read. Keep words small, Inject humor. You do lose some advantage if your opponent has boring arguments, but you probably make I ppl for it by being likeable and creating an unconscious bias towards you in judges.

Invited debates are not the fault of would be judges. It is the fault of boring debaters. I have probably voted on 100 abortion debates. Make it interesting so I don't have to read the same arguments a 101st time. Then you might get me to vote

as if all were bored by the same subjects. tragic to have such an outlook.

You don't have time to go into depth, but I have seen every pro life and every pro choice argument. I don't need to see them again. The solution is to use those arguments for a more interesting debate title nor to go more in depth. 

Here is how you g.j o more in depth.

1. Pro life

You have perfected this argument and now have to go deeper. Instead of making this argument you defend one of your premises instead.

2. The fetus should be considered human life

Now you do this topic and perfect it. You can suddenly move on. You consistently beat pro choice people who previously did not accept fetuses as human life. Some pro choicers do consider it human and think the needs of the mother outweigh that if the child. You have to address them now.

3. The life of an unborn infant should be prioritized over the needs of the mother.

Maybe in that debate your opponent argues something like, babies are better off dead than to face this sick world. So now you start a debate topic on neonatalism.

Uou still defend your position or change it when presented with new facts, and consistently become a better debater while getting more votes on your increasingly more obscure topics. 

I would avoid going too obscure here though, because you can get boring. People going to obscure using evolutionary arguments for example, get boring when they start debating abiogenesis 

And so, I launched a debate challenge proposing an 8-week fetus in a successful live-birth - something we have never seen, by the way - as a foil against Roe v. Wade, so it is a unique title and subject, yet no one on the pro-choice side wanted to take it up. Thus, your unique argument fails.

But, it's not like you have, in three years, had much experience debating in the first place. Experience says volumes. Get some.

I remember seeing the debate and being disinterested because it would get into legalese. 

I am not that educated on the Roe vs Wade decision, and my guess is most people have not taken the time to read any transcripts of the case or look at the judges concluding remarks. 

Nobody but people interested in the ins and outsnof laws would have been interested in that, and finding a judge may have been harder because of the dry nature. 

None of these things I am saying are insults.  If sucks that if you want votes, you have to debate what voters want to see as opposed to debating what you want. It is the reality of it though.

I can't help but notice you took my advice and now have an interesting debate up that tons of people are excited about reading. 

Nice assumption. Take credit if tharpt floats your boat, but I composed the debate a month ago and just waited to launch