There is no reason voting should be allowed for 6 months on a debate. That's half a year. It is too much waiting and makes the result feel stale and old.
I think beyond 2 weeks there are diminishing returns, but would be open to it lasting for up to a month to give users more freedom. 6 months is just insanity.
Who cares about voting? Voting is just irrelevant part of debate and affects nothing.
Any other thoughts?
no
Towards the end of Debate.org, I was enjoying voting on debates with 'no time limit on votes.
Though I can understand why people might like a conclusion to their debates, me too I'd say. Eventually.
I tend towards 6 months of voting time when I make debates, because it gives the maximum window of opportunity for people to vote on said debates. If a year was an option, I might go with that instead.
Admittedly one can bring their debate to the front of the debates page I think,
Or post a request for votes in the vote request thread.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/48/vote-requests
Most effective is directly asking people to vote on your debate, directly as in tag their name so they get a notification or send them a message.
But I imagine many people feel awkward about doing that.
. . . Also can feel like work maybe, to have to gather up voters.
A lot of these debates are written with contemporary considerations that often change over months. For example, a debate on the Iran war will be written today when there is uncertainty, but if you allow votes 5 months out from when the debate was made, and if the IRGC was deposed by its own people by that time, then the votes will be extremely biased.
But that also brings up another issue: you're voting on debates that perhaps have long been settled instead of focusing on newly finished debates that are in the greatest need of votes.
Could I get a vote on this debate, your highness?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6607-europe-should-ban-3rd-world-immigrants
Not going to happen. The people of Iran have rallied behind their government.
Imagine if Canada was bombed by Koreans and they killed 10 of your leaders. Would you take their side? Or your government's side?
There is basically no window for victory for Israel and USA (Israel's bitch) in this war. Iran is going to keep building their cheap missiles and drones. They have a huge country, large population, and lots of mountains for cover and secret deployment of their missiles. They are basically holding 20% of the world's oil reserves hostage in the straight of Hormuz and fucking up the tourism and banking in the Gulf countries. It's a non-winning scenario for the US and Israel.
It's a hypothetical, just like it's a hypothetical that the Iranian people will certainly and willingly return to Sharia hell.
Imagine if Canada was bombed by Koreans and they killed 10 of your leaders.
If those 10 leaders were killing thousands of us for wanting freedom, eyes would be a lot drier than you think.
Fair point on #7,
As for #8 I voted on your debate.
Pity your opponent was an AI.
A lot of these debates are written with contemporary considerations that often change over months. For example, a debate on the Iran war will be written today when there is uncertainty, but if you allow votes 5 months out from when the debate was made, and if the IRGC was deposed by its own people by that time, then the votes will be extremely biased.
Why would that matter? Voters shouldn't be voting using information not presented within the debate to begin with, so future events months or years down the line wouldn't be relevant.
Should is the operative word. Most people never see artistic creations within the context of the corresponding zeitgeist of their creation.
It's sadly a very self-centered view, and thus extremely biased and unfair to the original content creator. If cancel culture taught us nothing, it's that blanket judgements out of temporal norms usually manufacture ill intentions and warped understandings.
The same applies to debates about current events: when people vote on a debate six months later, they inevitably will evaluate the arguments using hindsight and information that the debaters obviously did not have when the debate occurred. This creates outcome bias, where voters reward whoever happened to align with what later proved true rather than who made the strongest argument given the information available at the time, making the evaluation unfair to the participants who were reasoning within the limits of the information of the moment.
Should is the operative word. Most people never see artistic creations within the context of the corresponding zeitgeist of their creation.
It's sadly a very self-centered view, and thus extremely biased and unfair to the original content creator. If cancel culture taught us nothing, it's that blanket judgements out of temporal norms usually manufacture ill intentions and warped understandings.
This is so wildly outside the context of voting on an online debate on a forum board, and I don't have the energy tonight to get rage-baited by a second person.
The same applies to debates about current events: when people vote on a debate six months later, they inevitably will evaluate the arguments using hindsight and information that the debaters obviously did not have when the debate occurred. This creates outcome bias, where voters reward whoever happened to align with what later proved true rather than who made the strongest argument given the information available at the time, making the evaluation unfair to the participants who were reasoning within the limits of the information of the moment.
That's why the voting guidelines for this site exists, and the report vote feature exists to enforce them. After having read through them, I actually think this is the first of the three variants of this site (DDO, DART, and DebateCraft) that has actually encapsulated a scale of what makes a good vote good and a bad vote bad, and I like how the site makes reading them and taking a basic "did I comprehend what I just read" quiz a pre-requisite to vote on higher quality debates (Ultrarated).
As a coincidental aside, I just finished a debate on the current conflict in Iran.
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/7o/was-killing-ayatollah-khameini-good-or-bad
It didn't end up being very good, but I got to crack some funny jokes at the end, so I'll take my feels-good's where I can get them.
Sure, voting guidelines do mostly fix that problem, but why not have a prophylactic approach? What are the upsides for a 6-month voting window?
I'unno. I just win my debates. That way it doesn't matter how long the window is.
I'unno, wouldn't get my vote Alyssa.
And I can tell that Shoresy is in love with your avatar, even though the chances of you being that person are very very slim...He needs a prophylactic...Fantasy is a common disease.
The chances of you even being female is only 50/50.
Yes, voting is a game in itself and not relevant to the personal satisfaction of knowing that ones own debate was better than ones opponents.
Though for me, online debating is just another compositional exercise.
even though the chances of you being that person are very very slim
Well considering that it's a drawing of a fantasy character that I've used in a D&D game, I would be concerned if you thought that there was any chance that my pfp was an image of me. The only similarities is general face shape and hair length, along with the desire that my hair was that shade of red (I'm a brunette but frequently dye my hair red).
The chances of you even being female is only 50/50.
...okay? I am, but I can't really stop you from believing otherwise, nor do I see why I need to prove my femininity to you.
The chances of you even being female is only 50/50.
I dont care if she is female. I have no logical interest in her. I am a pure divine being. So her being female is irrelevant to me, even tho many other members seem to be distracted.
Well Lucy, female members are a rare occurrence.
And Alyssa, your gender relative to such a medium is somewhat irrelevant and unprovable, though I will take what you say at face value.
And Alyssa, I do not run with the concept of believe...I am firmly of the opinion that one either knows something or one doesn't...Therefore as far as things go you will still remain indeterminate
Take her word for it. A picture speaks a thousand words.
As I said, I am prepared to take their word at face value...Just as I take yours...But there is no way that I can be certain.
So should I accept Lucy's word or Lucy's picture?
If the two support your conclusion then take them both into account.
Well, neither support my conclusion.
That means you lack support for your conclusion. You are on your own.
Well...Lucy presents a feminine avatar and a feminine name, so do they both support your conclusion.
We know the gender he supports.
