2 years ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
50 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    I have been in tournaments where the winner was solely based off popular vote, and debates where it was solely off judges votes. I think that this current format is the best as it is right now.

    I don't think there is a better way right now.

    • 2 years ago

      Ok, this is my opinion about the burn out on RD's. I think it has to do with the amount of RD's.

      When there is only a small number of RD's you're picked on to debates excessively. The RD's that went through burnout were RD's when there were only like 4 or 5 RD's.

      As the number of RD's grow it won't be the same people being called on to debate so often.

      • 2 years ago

        That was a savage comment about the stingy folks having no chance. 😂

        • 2 years ago

          They’ll still share their debates with community votes outside of tournaments.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 @yaz what do you think about the speech times of 3 min? agree/disagree?

          • 2 years ago

            @josh808 i think it's longer than we would like it to be, but it's shorter than most debaters are used to..

            for the general audience, listening to anyone speak for 3 minutes at a time can be already too long..

            Maybe longer opening statements? but the rest being 3 min?

          • 2 years ago

            @josh808 I personally like it. It's challenging but it also means we get concise, watchable debates that can still say important things.

          • 2 years ago

            @josh808 if you want to see the alternative to the short concise debate, see the almost 60 minute debate me and @alot_like_locke did. If you can make it through the entire debate. We ran out of stuff to talk about pretty early and then just went to repeating ourselves repeatedly.

          • 2 years ago

            @the_peoples_champ I agree that listening to someone speak for 3 whole minutes is a bit long for most people's attention spans, though it's been an adjustment to have such short speeches. It would SERIOUSLY help the pacing though if you could figure out a way to do cross-examination. I realize that may be a struggle with how the software works right now involving passing the mic. CX is far more involved and easier to watch than back to back speeches so even 90-second CXs between the first four speeches would really liven things up imo.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13, I do the same thing. I pick draw to watch the votes as they come in also.

          • 2 years ago

            @yaz, @debateme13
            We can have debates scheduled M-F. The weekends can be for judges to make their decision and for emails on the next weeks tournament debates.

            If the debatees want to reschedule that is okay but it must be done before midnight Eastern time on friday.

            • 2 years ago

              hahahah you don't want to see my excel.. Assignment of judges is done based on availability, stance on the topic and level of knowledge on the topic.

              Guys - great discussion and great ideas!
              I'm still in favor of popular vote to mean something cause at the end of the day debating is about persuasion not just technical skills that the judges will pick up. Of course it's not perfect (exactly like democracy lol) but it gives you a sense of how impactful was your speech. I feel that as we grow the community, "fair" votes will overpower the "friends" just like in big competitions..

              Thanks again for the ideas!

              • 2 years ago

                @gigi we can keep the popular votes, and incentivize them to be objective, but we don't need to make them drive the selection of a winner...

              • 2 years ago

                @gigi Yeah I was thinking that popular vote could be the tiebreaker. For instance, if someone drops out of round 2, whoever had the highest popular vote of the round 1 losers would get the fill in spot. Something like that could work.

              • 2 years ago

                @gigi I agree with you. This is basically like the discussion about whether the popular vote or electoral college should count towards the presidential election.

                And honestly the integration of both that QallOut has is a better system than the american election system.

                my one suggestion would be (popular vote + two RJ's) for every debate.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 , @yaz, @gigi, this is only my opinion. I don't think it is a good idea to get rid of the importance of the popular vote.

                Voting is one of the only reasons why I watch as many debates as I do, because I believe my vote matters. If the votes don't count for anything then viewership of debates will go down.

                Also getting rid of the importance of the popular vote is less incentive to share ones debates.

                It is a necessary evil. Like I said make it best of three: popular vote + 2 RJ's = winner

                This way if a person feels they won the debate hands down and will get the two RJ's votes, then they don't have to politic for votes. The only ones that will politic will be the debaters who feel it wasn't their best outing.

              • 2 years ago

                @the_peoples_champ There's only like 5 people who vote on all the debates. Those same 5 people can still be incentivized by the "objective vote" competition that they just instated.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 that my friend is speculation. Show me your evidence that only "5" people vote on all debates.

              • 2 years ago

                @the_peoples_champ @debateme13 @the_peoples_champ

                hahahah so we have a tie! 1 founder and 1 RD against 1 founder and 1 RD.. I think I have to bring a judge to break the tie lol

                Not sure if it's my greek democratic bias but i like the popular vote.. maybe not now that we are small if you feel it's unfair but in the long run I find it critical for a few additional reason:
                - QallOut users basically fall into 2 categories i.e. debaters and audience (some are in both). I feel that we need to also give audience the right incentives and "power" to feel that they are part of the game
                - In the long run we want the debaters here to develop fans, get followers etc. Hence audience and their votes should be as important as the judge that we are bringing
                - Slight concern that by eliminating community votes we might loose our social/ fun aspect and we will turn more into a technical debate platform
                - Last point is business related so this is on us and we should find a way to give you the best experience. By having too many/ only judges, it will be impossible to scale the tournaments...

                So now you have an idea of what Yazan and I are debating on a daily basis...:sweat_smile:

              • 2 years ago

                @gigi I don't think we should eliminate community vote. We should keep the community vote, both for the regular debates and for the tournament.

                But we should not make tournament advancement be dependent on votes. This is something I have heard from basically everyone I talk to, as well as people who refuse to join Qallout tournaments specifically because it is dependent on community votes, which they think is cheap and so they don't sign up.

              • 2 years ago

                @the_peoples_champ @debateme13 I review all debates and votes.. you would be surprised..

                Anyways, I think it's time to have a team battle!
                @yaz & @debateme13 vs @the_peoples_champ & me. This should be the first group debate to test

              • 2 years ago

                @gigi I agree with you 100%.

                Imagine a QallOut where no one actually comes on the website to vote during the tournament. They only wait for emails saying when they have a debate. They come on, debate then unplug from the QallOut community.

                That's what I think QallOut would be if the popular vote was taken away.

                For one I personally only watch as many debates as I do because I believe people need my vote. If my vote no longer matters then I would be on QallOut less than I am.

                I might be the only person that feels that way, but I might not be the only person that feels that way.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 thats not what that photo shows. You are interpreting it to say what you want it to say.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 Well I'm sure for the 3 friends that Daniel has that might be a problem. But I and the friends that I know enjoy the community vote and interaction.

                What media platform thrives by eliminating interaction with the public? Is that not counter productive to a business?

              • 2 years ago

                @the_peoples_champ That's a strawman. There will still be a community vote. All I'm saying is that community vote should not be part of the advancement in a tournament.

                I also have empirics. Real life debate tournaments attract thousands of debaters in numerous different leagues. They are not dependent on how many people watch your round, they are specific to judge voting. It works when you do it that way.

              • 2 years ago

                @gigi i'm down. I'll debate Terrance, Georgia you would debate Daniel.

                (you guys don't want to see Georgia and I debating, it's be a blood bath :p )

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 And that's where you and I always disagree. QallOut is not a "Collegiate Debate Platform". It can't cater only to those people who like "Collegiate Debates".

                Look at the crop of new debaters we have in the last two tournaments.

                Do you think they would sign up if QallOut catered to just the "Collegiate Style Debaters".

              • 2 years ago

                @the_peoples_champ @debateme13 @gigi what let community votes potentially 'save' a debater?

                so if a debate is judged fully by RJs, but someone won the community vote, it means this person can re-enter Round 1 (as they have it in online poker) if there's capacity (And there's always 10-20% last min no shows, either in Round 1 or Round 2, so if there are empty spots, priority goes to community vote winners (in the first 24 hours)

                This means users will still share 'just in case' they don't win RJ votes, so that maybe they can win the community votes abd be in priority backup..

              • 2 years ago

                @yaz I'll shoot you a text.

              • 2 years ago

                @yaz Yeah I like that. There can be some incentive for popular vote, but it shouldn't interfere with the objectivity of the debate itself.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 I'll break the tie guys dont worry lol

              • 2 years ago

                Here's a proposal that is a solid compromise.

                Keep popular vote for all non tournament debates. This allows you to continue to bring in new people.

                THEN make the popular vote the tiebreaker for all tournament debates. Meaning you look at the four RJ's decisions first. If its a 2-2 split, then you default to popular vote.
                This way you keep the popular vote and it incentivizes people to vote but you also reduce the burnout and stop the popularity contest.

                This is just the first thought I had. Clearly this is a complex issue though with lots of ramifications i'll be thinking through, this is my first take lol

            • 2 years ago

              15:19, eureeca moment
              thank u for an awesome discussion @debateme13, really appreciate the feedback and fantastic ideas.

            • 2 years ago

              We should basically call it "Ready to start" as opposed to "Start Debate"
              @debateme13

              • 2 years ago

                @yaz that's perfect. haha that's really what it is and that means people won't be scared to click "start"

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 yeah, but we should then make the live blinker clear, so they know they're also live. let me think about this :) but great stuff man, thank u!

            • 2 years ago

              Its important for QallOut to incentivise users to bring their friends to the platform. For every 20 drone votes, someone gets keen and dips their toe in the water.

              As the site grows and the incentive program leads people to want to make the right decison, the community votes will also outgrow friend votes

              Judges are ultimately a majority in every round where the audiance disagrees which is sufficient check.

              • 2 years ago

                @benmouse42 lets use those 20:1 numbers.

                if it takes 20 drone votes to bring in a new user, thats a ton of work for the existing debater. That significantly increases the existing user's burnout. This is a huge part of why the vast majority of Qallout's membership is inactive. Former RD's have been gone for months. The majority of the 500 people in the Facebook group don't debate. It doesn't matter how many new users we bring in if the current debaters leave. It's just a revolving door.

                Also, people who would have joined Qallout often don't join because they see Qallout as being dependent on community votes and don't consider it worth their time.

                That's before we even factor in how it hurts the objectivity of debates.

                A better solution would be the one Yaz and I were talking about. Require people to share their debate, probably have some incentive to have people do some sort of vote, but don't incentivize people to spam friends looking for votes from people who don't even watch the debates.

                This way, we still bring in new debaters, but we keep the current debaters from getting burnt out, and we bring up the level of objectivity in the judgement of the debates.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13

                1. What users have you talked to as to why they are inactive?

                2. What RD’s have you talked to and asked why they are inactive?

                3. Community Votes are a necessary evil. What is the purpose of having an awesome debate with RJ’s deliberating that only two debaters and the judges watch.

                4. You can’t just say “have 4 RJ’s per debate judge” it’s not like RJ’s just magically appear.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 ppl dont like requirements and often this platform serves as a place for ppl to share thoughts they do not want public.

                The beauty of bringing on friends to vote is that it doesnt feel like work. The judges still give the last say but the votes feel like they count also.

              • 2 years ago

                @debateme13 Myself and another RD have had to take time off, not because of going out and getting votes. Which I do no think I have done in the tourney I was in. We have lives that sometimes takes precedent over hours of research and case building.

            • 2 years ago

              Very cool discussion @debateme13 and @yaz Awesome ideas!

              -Best outcome of discussion
              Find a way to force tournament participants to share on at least one social network for the debate rounds. I think that is totally fair, and very few would be against it, especially you explain the purpose is the survival of the site and the growth of its community. I'd be more than happy to auto-share all tournament debates.

              -Popular votes
              I don't mind them. I accept that they are biased. I always understood the point of them was partly to encourage promotion. And that's fine, a cost of helping the site stay alive. I can't say I like it, I'd rather all the votes be thoughtful, but I accept it.

              -My sharing
              I share all my tournament debates, and I share debates where I think there was a really cool exchange. I did find that when sharing all my debates, folks on my friend list were getting flooded. Also, they seemed to most like watching the ones where I was competing so their votes were impactful.

              -Draw voting
              I noticed in the rules for the judging contest that only first vote counts, so I didn't vote draw on any of them. I do pre-vote draw on debates I don't intend to watch. :) but I want to see how people voted. Sometimes seeing the votes motivates me to watch, sometimes not.

              -TD Burnout
              I'm hopelessly addicted, love that people want to debate with me, mostly can't get enough. Though I'm trying to keep it around 3 debates a week. I only find the scheduling of debates a bit of a hassle. A lot of my topics get picked up, then they never respond on a date/time. But mostly, no burnout for me. Too addicted to debating...

              Sleepy... I should bo go bed :P

            • 2 years ago

              Haha thanks for the shoutout @debateme13. btw the round mentioned where the whole exchange about how votes weren't counted because they happened before the debate ended was another one of my debates too. I'm happy to be your catalyst for change.