DART should change it's source points

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 19
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
I've always emphatically disagreed with sources in debates being worth two points, especially when the most convincing argument is only worth three.

First of all, the reliability of a source is highly subjective, especially in today's political climate.

Second, everyone has their own opinion on what criteria we even use to judge sources. Some voters give sources to one participant over the other just because they used more of them.

Third and most importantly, sources are not always relavant to the topic and/or the arguments being made. Most debates come down to philosophical differences. The entire point of a debate is to argue your point, not ramble off a bunch of links that say you're right.

That's not to say sources shouldn't be judged or that there are not some debates where reliable sources are crucial to the debate, but I find that in most cases it just skews the point total in ways it shouldn't.
#2
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
Without commenting on the reasons proposed by Double R beyond the below, I agree source points should be dropped.  So should conduct.  

The objective in judging a debate is to decide a win and loss.  This is a subjective call in practice, though we should all try to be as objective and fair as possible.  We can't be perfectly fair or objective because we're human beings (among other existential considerations beyond the scope of my point here), but that should be the goal.  This process optimally done with a single decision, whether up or down/win or loss.  
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Double_R
The entire point of a debate is to argue your point, not ramble off a bunch of links that say you're right.
Not to be agreed or disagreed, but just to showcase how "important" sources are, I have essentially attempted to write an argument like I always do with a kritik as a ricin dart here in a formal Public Forum debate where thousands of Chinese, American, etc. children and students join, and was literally declared losses because the judges saw my argument as sourceless, as I base my argument off of basic logical tautological statements on both side then declare them, and the opposing side questioned our side with...sources only, or latent descriptions that are rooted in sources, and none in pure logic. Yet, the judges did buy it and gave them the win.

The point I am trying to make is that DART debates are in fact much less source-oriented than perhaps many IRL debate tournaments, and I don't see the problem with the current system as I am pretty satisfied. I have even won with source points towards the opposing side and the argument points towards mine on this site. If you have better arguments and you behave coherently and according to the Coc, you possibly win.

#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Double_R
But otherwise, yeah. Sources are bound to be the servant of the argument, not the master.
#5
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
For #2, see this.
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
In any seriousness, this system was created possibly in "2008". We already have the number of debates in the 2000s or even then 3000s. We can't change the vote of all of them. If we do then, the leaderboard will shift massively due to a change of how wins work.
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
Arguments should stay 3 and the rest 1.5 each. :)
#8
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@Double_R
I harbor similar reservations about sources. That's why I always go with the "decide winner" voting style. Just to me if I won or lost, no need to break it down by arguments, sources, conduct. Just give me a holistic assessment.
Topic's author
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
@coal
@Jeff_Goldblum
@Intelligence_06
Good discussion so far. Just wanted to add my thoughts in response; I do agree with points for seperate categories, I just don't think they're being weighed appropriately. If it were me I'd give 4 points for arguments, 1 point each for spelling/grammar, sources, and conduct. So even if someone loses on everything else, they'd still win based on the argument. That way only the closest of debates would be decided  by the other categories.

I think the other three categories should still be encouraged, a simple Pro or Con vote fails to do that.
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Good discussion so far. Just wanted to add my thoughts in response; I do agree with points for seperate categories, I just don't think they're being weighed appropriately. If it were me I'd give 4 points for arguments, 1 point each for spelling/grammar, sources, and conduct. So even if someone loses on everything else, they'd still win based on the argument. That way only the closest of debates would be decided  by the other categories.

I think the other three categories should still be encouraged, a simple Pro or Con vote fails to do that.
100% THIS
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
I am of the opposite ethos.

There is a reason I laugh and win debates where I forfeit a Round.

Conduct is a third of arguments and half of sources.

They are all that matter at the moment.
Topic's author
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
In any seriousness, this system was created possibly in "2008". We already have the number of debates in the 2000s or even then 3000s. We can't change the vote of all of them. If we do then, the leaderboard will shift massively due to a change of how wins work.
I don't see why any completed or started debates would need to be changed. I'm sure they could just adjust the system for all new debates. DDO did that when they transitioned to a point system from the simple vote system they used previously.
Topic's author
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
If someone forfeits, they lose on arguments...
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
1 Round?

I could call you double R the Retarded Raasclaat and win a debate right now. Challenge me to a debate and I will call you it and win, yes I am saying I think I'd beat you right now on most topics.
Topic's author
#15
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Serious comment or did I miss the joke?
#16
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
 Most debates come down to philosophical differences
In which case, referencing quality philosophy resources can be useful and strengthen one's case. Saying something with no source and saying that same thing with a source to a well-known and respected philosophy resource/literature (or whichever relevant academic type of source there is for the type of debate) is different, and they should be treated differently. That isn't to say that one should be able to win off of good sources alone if the opponent made a better case, but that just means having arguments weigh more than sources (which they do).

Now, the issue is how much weight should sources be given, and I think that if we are giving conduct and grammar 1 point each and arguments 3 that putting sources in the middle is actually a good idea. If you want to change sources to be worth less then I would say we would have to rebalance the whole thing, as I think sources should be worth more than grammar and more than conduct.
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
it wasn't a joke, it was of course comedic but was highlighting that until you make conduct worth 50% of arguments instead of 33.3%, everybody should happily risk losing conduct lol... Especially if it can make the opponent lazier or alternatively more impulsive.
#18
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,296
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Double_R
I agree. Sources should be a part of the argument, not its own category. Conduct doesn’t matter in the matter of winning a debate (although it is appreciated), and Spelling and Grammar is not a huge issue as long as it’s legible.
Topic's author
#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
In which case, referencing quality philosophy resources can be useful and strengthen one's case. 
No, they don’t. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit, not because respected person X said so.

Sources are useful for affirming one’s factual assertions to keep arguments from evolving into a diarrhea of unchecked falsehoods. If the argument you’re making is philosophical and you understand it, you don’t need someone else’s stamp to validate it.