Number of votes in debates should be visible only to the debaters.

When we click on something in the voting period, we automatically see the votes that people have gotten.

People have a tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, and would psychologically view that argument as being superior.

If we remove that, then they no longer have an "objective" method of distinguishing the better debater, since they no longer have those numbers visible to them.

In that case, it would push them to read the debate and make the decision for themselves, in a neutral position.

Another point I would like to make is that there is absolutely no reason for a voter to see how many votes each side has in the first place. Since it doesn't serve a purpose, and may hinder the neutrality of their decision, why not just do away with it and make the votes visible only to the people debating?

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters. Second, I'd like for the voters to vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what boils down to your own personal opinion. With that said, let us proceed.

My opponent first states that people have the tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, but this is conjecture at best. The burden of proof belongs to my opponent, so I would advise that he provide evidence that suggest his claim to be true.

Second, even by my opponent's speculation, upholding his solution would be utterly meaningless. If voters believe that people with more votes are better debaters, then it doesn't matter whether or not the voters can see the actual amount of votes as they will still be aware of who is winning and who is not.

Third, there is nothing within my opponent's plan that is definitely motivating the voters to read the debates. Not being able to vote is no biggy as they can still vote on other irrelevant factors such as which side they personally agree with, which side presented the most text, what people are saying in the comment section, which user they like more, etc.

My opponent then states that there is absolutely no reason for voters to see how many votes each side is receiving, but I tell you that having the ability to see how many votes each side is receiving is VERY CRUCIAL when it comes to the outcome of these debates.

Voters not being able to witness how many votes both debaters are receiving increases the likelihood of debaters getting away with underhanded voting that involves use of multiple accounts. If voters can't establish that one side is winning by a peculiar amount of votes, they likely won't submit any reports to the website's administration (who can investigate and penalize when necessary). Only the debaters will have knowledge of possible underhanded behavior and there is no guaranteed exceptional likelihood of one user doing anything about the problem.

Debaters can easily lie about the number of votes they are receiving. For instance, if a debater tells the voters that he/she is losing by an unfair amount, this in turn may cause users to vote for said debater out of pity. Heck, it may even cause these users to start wasting the website administration's time by submitting meaningless abuse reports due to a lies crafted by dishonest debaters.

I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.

"Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters. Second, I'd like for the voters to vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what boils down to your own personal opinion. With that said, let us proceed."

You're welcome.

"My opponent first states that people have the tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, but this is conjecture at best. The burden of proof belongs to my opponent, so I would advise that he provide evidence that suggest his claim to be true."

I concede that point. It is most definitely my own personal belief and I have little to no statistical proof that people are biased by vote count. However, I find my hypothesis rational if not probable. If my opponent agrees that the possibility exists, then I will continue defending my point by saying that in the interests of debate and the integrity of this site, that this mild change be implemented. If however, my opponent believes that there is no possibility that the vote count may bias another voter, then I request an explanation.

"Second, even by my opponent's speculation, upholding his solution would be utterly meaningless. If voters believe that people with more votes are better debaters, then it doesn't matter whether or not the voters can see the actual amount of votes as they will still be aware of who is winning and who is not."

This assumes that the winner will be visible and that the voters express their bias consciously. Setting aside the voters who vote for the winning side for reasons other than supporting the better argument, there are many who do intend to evaluate the quality of the posts. However, the number of votes a person has, clearly and distinctly placed right by the profile pictures, offer a sort of quantitative analysis of the debate. I believe that unconsciously, potential voters may be passing judgment with that prior bias.

"Third, there is nothing within my opponent's plan that is definitely motivating the voters to read the debates. Not being able to vote is no biggy as they can still vote on other irrelevant factors such as which side they personally agree with, which side presented the most text, what people are saying in the comment section, which user they like more, etc."

I also propose that each vote come with a mandatory comment, an explanation for the vote. This will, at the very least, require them to read the arguments with some detail. My focus is on eliminating outside influence within the forum. The sources of bias in a voter's day-to-day life are outside my control, but can hopefully be remedied by forcing the voter to reflect on his or her decision.

"My opponent then states that there is absolutely no reason for voters to see how many votes each side is receiving, but I tell you that having the ability to see how many votes each side is receiving is VERY CRUCIAL when it comes to the outcome of these debates.

Voters not being able to witness how many votes both debaters are receiving increases the likelihood of debaters getting away with underhanded voting that involves use of multiple accounts. If voters can't establish that one side is winning by a peculiar amount of votes, they likely won't submit any reports to the website's administration (who can investigate and penalize when necessary). Only the debaters will have knowledge of possible underhanded behavior and there is no guaranteed exceptional likelihood of one user doing anything about the problem."

I do understand that argument.

First, I find it highly unlikely that a band of supporters will form in order to report suspicious behavior.

Second, having a band of supporters does not inherently make it more likely for action to be taken. Whether one person, two people, or two hundred people see a suspicious voting discrepancy does not change the fact that one exists. One person reporting it to the admin is good enough.

Third, the mandated explanations I proposed will help fend off the multi-accounts. In that case, there would be much less to worry about.

"Debaters can easily lie about the number of votes they are receiving. For instance, if a debater tells the voters that he/she is losing by an unfair amount, this in turn may cause users to vote for said debater out of pity. Heck, it may even cause these users to start wasting the website administration's time by submitting meaningless abuse reports due to a lies crafted by dishonest debaters."

I thought it went without saying that the votes are to be visible to administration. In that case, I'll say it now. I view the administration as outside the debating realm, so it would be fine for them to view the number of votes. In that case, this problem could be easily fixed. Liars will be caught.

First, my opponent concedes to not being able to provide evidence for his speculation concerning the mindset of the voters. Ladies and gentleman, this is crucial and is enough for you to tip your vote in my favor. In order to support his plan, there must be a clear and observable reason; in this case, his plan needs evidence before consideration. However, I will pacify my opponent in attempt to remove any shred of doubt from your minds.

I agree that the possibility exist, but are laws enacted based on "ifs" and "maybes?" Of course not. Laws are enacted to reduce problems which are observable. If a government isn't (and in relation to my opponent's case, BY ANY MEANS) even certain that a problem exist, it has got no reason to create means that will reduce or extract the problem (as wasting the societies time and money is to be avoided at all cost). In this case, my opponent is suggesting that debate.com utilize its time and resources based on his hunch.

The resolution makes no mention of the winners being invisible. Because of that (and because of no clarification in round 1), I am justified to make such a conclusion. As for assuming that voters express their bias consciously, I do no such thing. As I've said earlier, I will not claim that my opponent's theory is impossible, but at the same time, I will not support it if my opponent has no evidence in favor of it.

My opponent then makes the proposition that each vote come with a mandatory comment, but he is too late in doing this as this should have been covered when defining the topic in round 1. Thus, I am obligated to dismiss this edit. Besides, through editing his plan, he is only acknowledging weakness in his original plan.

However, I will pacify my opponent by pointing out the flaw in his reasoning here. A mandatory comment system (the kind my opponent list) would not coerce voters to explain why they voted as it only coerces voters to post. Voters can get around having to read the debate by talking about pointless minutia in their comments. Furthermore (and even assuming the system did coerce voters to post their actual reason), this system compromises my opponent's ENTIRE case. If all voters are required to explain why they voted, figuring out how many votes each participant (in the debate) received will be rather simple. Thus, my opponent's plan would defeat its very purpose.

My opponent states that he finds it highly unlikely that a band of supporters will form to report suspicious behavior, but I tell you that this is very much likely. The debate.com administrators actually rely on there being a band of reporters who report suspicious behavior, hence the reason they've installed the "report abuse" option.

Second, having a band of supporters DOES inherently make it more likely for action to be taken. As one may (or may not) have noticed, there are no forum moderators. This is due to the fact that the staff doesn't have the time to moderate. In all honesty, Debate.com's highest priority is its users. This is why they are putting so much effort into creating a 3rd version of this website. With the 1000s of users here, there being a high rate of pseudo reports is more than likely and investigating every single one of these reports would be very tedious and time consuming. The easiest solution to this is having a weighted voting system. In this system, the administrators respond to reports made by a certain amount of users. This system is actually used on most online forums of this size and helps in combating an absurd work load. So basically, if enough of debate.com's users think there is a problem, debate.com is going to do everything within its power to fix that problem.

Third, the mandated explanations are not a working solution (as I've explained) and may even encourage users to spam at a higher rate than they do now.

As for the last point, my point was that it being invisible to the users could bring about a plethora of unnecessary abuse reports. By no means was I suggesting that the administrators would not be able to see the votes being made.

Closing Statements: The main reason you should vote for my case is due to the fact that my opponent's plan does not have enough evidence to even support the notion that the problem it prevents actually exist. However, as I've insinuated, there are numerous other problems with this plan such as how it can encourage spam, dishonesty, as well as how it can slow down necessary site updates due to the number of investigations the administrators would be obligated to check up on. Oh, and lets not forget how mandatory comments would compromise the plan altogether. In short, it's more trouble than it is worth. Thus, I strongly urge you vote against my opponent's case.

I had fun and thank my opponent for the debate. I also thank all those who took the time out of their day to read. Peace out!