You need to have a no vote option on your web page or an option for a third opinion as some debators are using/achieving the same argument...
Gemma said 02/17, 10:07 AM
Reading these debates many of the debators are basically saying the same thing though on supposedly opposite sides. You need to ensure that the debate has two opposite sides of the argument. There should be a no vote option on the web page for voters as well as a challenge option for a third party to debate if the first two are not giving differing arguments. This might actually lead to better results.
Zomgoose said 02/18, 07:44 AM
I'd like to point out that there's absolutely nothing forcing you to click that vote button if you for any reason don't feel the need to. Having a third opinion would be kind of illogical-in a debate between 2 people you shouldn't have a 3rd option, and many of these debates are yes or no questions. It even says somewhere on this site: the best candidates for debate topics are yes/no questions.
Gemma said 02/18, 09:41 AM
Zoom Zoom when was the last time you debated mano s amano? Look at the Presidential debates going on right now. A candidate may relate and talk back to a question asked of another candidate. Also, a yes or no answer ...if the candidates only had yes or no questions it would be a slam dunk. A debate is opinion leading to pursuasion. When was the last time the presidential debates yielded yes / no from the candidates? If that's all the answer there was to give then, they would not be in a debate. If not having a third/fourth opinion is important why are so many respondents in these Elephant/Donkey debates seeking change? They don't believe the two parties that are up there are giving them the answers nor the leadership they need.
Zomgoose said 02/25, 07:30 PM
And who would provide this third or fourth option in each and every debate? You? The admins? Often enough, the topic or the person arguing it does not make sense, or there is no third option. This is a site for Republicans and Democrats to debate against one another, and sicne there are only two sides, should there really be a third option? Once again, you don't necessarily have to vote. I, for one, definitely don't vote in every debate.
Comments
Add Your Comment
i disagree on the no option vote where you have the option to vote for no one. if you don't wanna vote for anyone , JUST DON'T VOTE! so in my opinion both of you are right because both give good arguements but don't completely say me. maybe there should be a "both" vote.
Mark | 02/18/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
i think gemma is right. i constantly put my comments and read others and i see a large amount of comments basically saying " i agree with him but he didnt put up a very convincing arguement of the side of the issue" in those cases many would love to enter the actual debate and input their info.however i think 2 on 1 is unfare so we should allow 1 person to join each side so it's 2 on two thus maximizing the total brain power in the debate.
Mark | 02/18/08
Report Offensive Comment