Conceding and voiding debates.

I won't get too flowery with this opening statement.

There are many instances where a person may start a debate and not be able to finish it. Schoolwork, family emergencies, etc. These can interfere with a debate. In addition, a person may have made a fatal error in judgment, or realized that an opponent's point cannot be countered.

I believe that there should be two extra options:

1. Concede debate.

This automatically takes you out of the debate. The benefit of this is that in a multi-round debate, if you find you cannot win, or want to concede for any other reason, you don't force the rest of the site to wait 3 days per round before they can vote.

2. Void debate

This sends a request to the opponent to void the debate. In this case, there are no winners and the debate is deleted. Thus, a person cannot be voted for unfairly if the opponent has encountered some emergency.

You don't need to concede the debate or void the debate. You need to have the ability to change the stats on the debate while the debate is ongoing. I have had debates where they were too short, where there was still a large amount of on going debate to be had by both parties. As such, all you really need is the ability to forgo future rounds in the debate. Which would still allow the other side to make remarks about your debate. But, forgo the 3 day wait between rounds on your side. Secondly, there should be an option to change the number of debate rounds or increase the debate time.

If one party isn't going to be around for a week, they can ask that they be given a week delay. If a debate is going better you can ask your opponent to expand the debate rounds. If your opponent seems to be around, you should be allowed to give your opponent more time unilaterally.

I understand the need to concede a debate due to a changed position or because somebody picked out a major flaw in your argument. However, due to time constraints there should be simply better responses than concede or void debate. Further, you should be allowed to declare victory perhaps. What if I crush your argument in round one with such an overwhelming argument that to add to its force I choose to simply forgo all my future rounds?

Boom, crushed that argument. I'm done. That wins. I'll forgo the rest of the argument here.

I think that your view here is a bit narrow and that resigning and voiding debates due to time constraints would be excessive. You simply need to allow a person to choose a bit more about the time constraints. If my opponent wants to reply and posts such in the comments. I should be allowed to give him or her some additional time to for the argument. Or to allow additional rounds to be requested by both parties, or a truncation of rounds if the debate is settled. Further, what if I don't concede. What if I've won the argument and don't care to write that I've won. I should be able to forgo my future rounds without conceding or forfeiting.

We don't need those features as there are better features to deal with the problem you are describing.

Your suggestions are good, and I've already thought of them before. However, none of them address my main concern, which is to push a debate to voting status as soon as the debate has come to a standstill.

Conceding the debate automatically registers it as a WIN on the opponent's part and nulls voting. Voting wouldn't be necessary in that case. If we followed your suggestion on forgoing the extra rounds, the opponent would get to give a response, but for what purpose? The debate is over. All it would do is delay the voting period, which as I have said before, has no use in a conceded debate anyway. Any additional comments should be made in the comment section.

As for your recommendations that we forgo our responses to show the strength of our arguments, that seems like a tactic aimed at winning based on votes, which I am against. If we are to debate, we should win based on the validity and strength of our arguments, not necessarily on tricks to convince voters. Besides, your opponent, no matter how terrible, deserves a response. It's just plain courtesy.

All in all, your suggestion to be able to "forego" rounds is just a slower version of my conceding or voiding debates. There's no reason to choose to forego rounds as opposed to conceding or voiding.

You also recommended extending debate time to busy opponents. I find this to be a bad idea because we would have a floating debate making absolutely no progress. I find this to be a problem already. Currently, it would take 3 days per round to end a debate that has come to a standstill. Your suggestion would make it even longer. With my method, all you do is void the debate and start it again when your opponent isn't so busy. That way, no one's scores get hurt, there's no unnecessary voting, and we free forum space.

Your final point about lengthening the number of rounds, I'm so-so about. While it seems good in theory, there really should be a limit. Debate is about putting your points forward as succinctly as possible, not who gets the last post or who's the most long-winded. Adding in extra rounds may be more enjoyable to debaters, but not to voters or spectators. And it definitely takes away from the integrity of debate.

If we implement these ideas of yours, debates would definitely be longer, but not necessarily better. I'm trying to improve quality by trimming out the crappy debates (when one person leaves, when one person concedes, when one person just doesn't want to respond or can't respond, etc.) Your suggestions prioritize quantity over quality. Bad debates don't need to be longer, and good debates don't need to be dragged on forever. That would make them bad.

If a person already has arguments to offer or wishes to over them for posterity that should be that side's right rather than forcing me to forgo my rounds as well just for a "win" in my box. What if I was waiting until the last round to put the moralistic hammer down against my opponent. Should I actually be forced to let it get buried in comments.

Just because my opponent gives up, doesn't mean I should give up my potential soap box. If I want to, go ahead and let me. Rather than post when my opponent has forgone his following rounds I could forgo mine and truncate the argument earlier.

There is still value in your rounds outside the debate. I have had opponents quit out and still wanted to point out how my argument succeeds.

I shouldn't be forced to give up my platform because you did... not unless I don't want to.