DonkeyDude vs Mark
If someone does not respond in the allotted time, they should forfeit automatically, but the counter just hits zero and then starts going back up!
DonkeyDude said 04/17, 09:35 PM
And there doesn't appear to be any kind of Help/FAQ/Contact link to help resolve these types of questions...
Mark said 04/17, 09:51 PM
i actually agree with you on most of the title of the debate, except for the "forfeit" part. First of all i would like to say that i have at least 3 debates in which my opponents have never responded and therefore i can never finish them. and they aren't listed on the "in progress" list so no one votes on them anymore. and it is freaking FRUSTRATING! and ANNOYING! however, i don't believe that they should forfeit after that. ask yourself what would happen if someone didn't respond and then they were forced to forfeit. what would happen? would the other opponent automatically win? that of course would destroy the whole purpose of the debate. I would like to see the person who doesn't reply to lose his or her chance to make the argument and the debate moves on, allowing the other opponent to continue their main argument and allow people to vote. How could we have normal debates if people are just winning since the opponent isn't responding? So by allowing someone to lose the arguement the opponent can continue to make the point and win more votes if they are good enough. And then hopefully maybe the missing debator will come online and actually develop an argument.
DonkeyDude said 04/18, 02:45 PM
My apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum. I'm a noob on this site.
Well said, Majestik. I think people do it for the purpose of not losing, so it should backfire on them. If anyone actually gives a damn about their win rating on this site, they can protect it by not responding.
Mark said 04/19, 10:32 AM
The point is it takes away the whole idea of the debate.if the person is forced to forfeit the debate than what has been debated? nothing! if we just made the person lose the argument his opponent could make a stronger argument and/or emphasis his other points. This could actually lead to more people agreeing with him/her on the topic and the debator winning with more votes and not because of a forfeit, where nothing is being debated.
DonkeyDude said 04/19, 08:36 PM
Huh?? Your last comment is wholly devoid of an intelligible point. Seems like you're concerned with the social value of these discussions. If someone is forced to forfeit the debate, what has been debated is the arguments that have been put forth on either side.
Even I don't care about this "debate" anymore. It's clear, I should think, that I posted this comment just to voice my frustration to people, not to engage in a debate with someone. The fact that you accepted the debate is pretty suspect, IMO.
And majestik and USA Pit Bull have pretty thoroughly supported my points below. For what it's worth, I think forfeiting the entire debate (rather than just that one argument) is more appropriate for a couple reasons. First, it acts as a deterrent against people starting arguments and then abandoning them (which, in accordance with your own stated concerns, diminishes the value of debate).
Second, if A argues, then B argues, then A never responds.. what do you expect B to say after that? He has nothing new to discuss, so he won't respond either, in which case A has no new impetus to respond, etc. It will work out the same as if A just forfeited. It is a concession of the point, IMO.
Mark said 04/20, 12:34 PM
We are on a debating site. To debate. If someone is forced to forfeit than the debate is not BEING DEBATED! the whole point of this site would become obsolete! By making B forfeit the argument you allow A to follow up his argument and make more points for his position. Thus allowing the topic to be further discussed.
I simply don't believe someone should win a debate based on a forfeit. If someone was to be forced to forfeit without the idea being debated than maybe the win shouldn't count on A's record since he/she didn't actually win the debate as much as B lost it.
Comments
Add Your Comment
This issue has been tackled numerous times. E-D essentially is a ghost ship; the land that Time??? forgot.
IamFry | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Yes this site has so many flaws I am debating interanlly about wheather or not its worth using.
yngster | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with DonkeyDude. It's pretty simple: If you accept or start the challenge/debate, you assume the risk of following the allotted time slots reserved for your proposals and rebuttals. If you don't have time to follow the recommended timeline, don't join the debate, or wait until you do have time.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post 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
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Well, I think either approach could work. Either you lose your chance to rebut, or you forfeit. The latter option is all we're talking about here. I think forfeiture of the entire argument would be appropriate because it implies that the debater has abandoned the argument or cannot rebut the counterargument previously made. I agree that, if this is the case, it could be deemed "completed" and the voters could have their way, but I think either situation would be preferable to the present one, because the current setup lends itself to manipulation.
majestik | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment