CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it ok to vote down a debate because words are spelled wrong?
It seems as of late, there are many debaters who cannot even take the time to make sure the title of the debate is spelled correctly, let alone their (not there or they're) debates! I can handle a typo here and there (not their), but this seems like laziness.
If I can't read a statement, it's not contributing anything to a debate. I won't waste my time trying to figure out what someone is trying to say if even they won't spend the time to make sure they're spelling correctly.
Often the problem is not that they can't spell very well, but that they can't type very well.
If we start ignoring/downvoting every argument with either misspellings, poor grammar, or incorrect punctuation, we won't have any arguments in the positive here.
Take your argument for instance: "They shouldn't be bothered with." is an incomplete sentence. Now, I know what you meant, and anyone with half a brain and a third-grade grasp of English could infer the correct message, but this side is advocating completely discounting what we say based on breaking grammatical or spelling rules as a way to feel superior without having to make a superior argument.
I heartily disagree, even if one can't type well there are abundant spell checking features available. Create Debate has one built in, as does Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer has plug-ins available. No, poor typing is not an excuse for poor spelling.
By the way, the sentence "They shouldn't be bothered with," is a complete sentence. However taken on its own the antecedent is unclear. In this context, however, I think that the statement you are referring to is clear. It would seem that you are grasping at straws in an attempt to make a point.
"It would seem that you are grasping at straws in an attempt to make a point."
As the debate creator I would completely agree! I have said multiple times that what I was referring to was people with every other word spelled wrong, no capitalization, no punctuation, and improper grammar... not a mis-typed word. He is just taking our words and twisting them to the extreme, and yes, if we down voted every argument/debate with a misspelled word or typo there would be little left, but I have said that over and over and he is just not getting it.
I guess as the debate creator that gives your argument some kinda enhanced validity? Forgive me if I consider that an appeal to authority.
So do you have a clear definable standard of what is too many errors and subsequently downvote the argument? It doesn't seem so. I haven't seen any posts here with no punctuation, completely incorrect grammar, or so forth.
You've just said "well some people do it too much" without defining what too much is, which to me means you just have a arbitrary point in your mind where you feel justified in downvoting an argument because you think they're "stupid" because of the letter arrangement of their post or their ability to use apostrophes correctly, or who knows what, because it hasn't been accurately defined in this debate.
I'm not twisting anyone's words, I took the position in this debate that says content should matter more than spelling, and that spelling errors are not a justifiable reason to downvote an argument. Now if you want to suddenly create different parameters for the debate topic, that's up to you, but that's not the topic you created to argue. I'm simply doing the proper debate thing and arguing the position I took up at the debates inception.
If you just want to keep moving the line back, or never really drawing it first, that's your option as the creator of the debate, but it is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.
This debate is not on the placement of "the line" as you call it. It is about whether it is appropriate to vote down an argument that has blatant misspellings that detract from the effectiveness of the content. If we were to create concrete rules for when an argument should be given an up or down vote then it would be much simpler to create a program to do this for us. Instead, the process of voting for or against an argument is one that is left to the voter. Each reader must read the argument and determine if the content is relevant, if the style is persuasive, and if any typos that may exist detract from the overall argument.
I support a set of guidelines that define what the purpose of the up or down vote is, but the "line" must be drawn by each individual reader. However, if I were to write those guidelines I would say that there should be three categories of consideration that I have already mentioned. Notice that none of those categories reflect the reader's opinion. This process should be impartial, and the purpose is to determine the merit of the argument in question as a piece of rhetorical prose. As I've pointed out in the past when we look at writings from past eras, or even current essays, we consider all facets of the writing. The eloquence of the author, the style of the syntax, the diction used, and of course the content being presented to us. However, prose that is written haphazardly without spelling or grammar checks, is most often ignored and forgotten; regardless of what insights the writing might have given. Such should be the same fate of poorly written arguments on this site.
Absolutely, if the purpose of the voting is to identify the most persuasive and effective arguments then spelling and grammar should be one of the first items to consider for an up vote or a down vote. The content should make up most of the consideration; still an argument written in all caps, fragments of thoughts, or worse both should be ignored at best and in most cases down voted. All that being said, one or two spelling errors isn't necessarily grounds for a down vote, but consistent, blatant, violations certainly should.
agreed. i'm not going to be persuaded by a person that types like a five-year-old, and i don't think anyone else can either. honestly, how do u get prsuaded by sum1 that rytes lyk dis ?
Some debates are so bad you can barely tell what the point is due to improper spelling and grammar! If you cannot properly communicate your point, you might get a vote down from me. Not if there is a typo or a mistake or too (not to or two). I am talking when every other word has an error in it! I am sorry, but I think that proper communication is an important aspect of a good debate!
I favor your argument but stand by my own. It is quite annoying and it is a form of laziness when this site has its own spell checker and others such as IESpell are available to all without charge. I cannot. however, in all good conscience vote down a debate post because of it. I would rather bring it to their attention in a private message.
If you want the numbers (or the entire site for that matter) to accurately reflect the opinion of the majority, use your words to favor an argument, as "favoring" here adds to the aggregate debate count. Perhaps it's something which should be addressed in the Townhall, but I hope you see my point. With the system working in its current fashion, it is best to downvote an argument you disagree with, regardless of whether they make a valid rebuttal or not. I dunno, maybe (tagged) downvotes should carry more weight. Regardless, this isn't the place to have this discussion, I guess, so...
Normally if a person does not have good spelling and grammar they do not usually have good content to support their arguments. Content should matter in order to logically support your argument but if you have a tool that allows you to check spelling there is really in my opinion no words that should be spelled wrong.
I really enjoy reading someone who know how to spell and I pay more attention to him/her than the one who can have a bad spelling even if he/she has a good argument.
I don't mind typos. But I can't stand when people try to be serious and "typ lyk dis" (type like this). That cannot be taken seriously! Get some Hooked on Phonics, damnit!
It depends on your goal. If you think it will help the shlep, then do it. If it makes you feel better, do it. Otherwise just move on. I mean, why bother? Life is short and time is valuable.
While it is annoying I think the context of the post is more important. It would be nice however if people could take more time into creating logical and readable sentences. While English grammar can be difficult for non-native English speakers, spelling should be no problem because of the the incorporated spell check on CD and thus I feel that spelling incorrectly anything other than names or capitalization is just lazy. Nonetheless, I never down vote a debate because of spelling or grammatical errors for it is what they say that is most important.
I oppose, very strongly, voting down a debate because of words that are incorrectly spelled. It is annoying, I know, and sometimes very difficult to make out what the person means to say. I also oppose voting down an argument because you don't happen to AGREE with the other side. That is pure and utter nonsense. It stands to reason that there will be opposing views...this IS a DEBATE SITE. I believe a post should be voted down if it adds nothing at all to the debate such as silly or serious comments. If your argument has substance it should NOT be voted down. I wish CD would issue the reasons for down voting and make it clear to people what the rules are. The same with up voting. Those votes count for a person's overall efficiency as a debater...it's not a popularity contest!
How can one's argument be persuasive if there is a misspelling in every sentence? I agree that for one or two misspelled words a down vote is out of line. But if there are serious misspellings that obstruct the meaning of the argument I think that a down vote is appropriate.
And I most certainly agree that we need a comprehensive set of guidelines for voting behavior.
Voting on an argument because you disagree/agree with it is not a problem. That's a legitimate use of the voting system, as it offsets the aggregate total of votes in a specific debate. Having said that, I'll say this: one should not downvote an argument if they have no rebuttal to said argument, or haven't already posted an argument they feel rebuts the argument they're downvoting.
Go into your moderator panel and correct the typos on this sides view...it should read...should matter more! Or was that a point you were making about spelling?
The original post was being smart but I could understand what the line said. Personally I say live and let live. If you have a problem with spelling when you read something, click the back button and move to another post. Its that simple. We have enough problems with the morality police without having to live with the spelling police too.
If you were to read a newspaper article with a typo in ever sentence would you consider it good writing? If you were reading an essay that was meant to persuade you to vote for a candidate but all four hundred words of it were printed in all capital letters, would that bother you?
Perhaps I am anal-retentive but it most certainly would bother me. The point of debate is to create well thought our and structured arguments that will convince one's opponent that they are wrong and that you are right. The best course of action to achieve this goal is to create complete thoughts and communicate properly.
By the way, using that study doesn't support your argument at all. If spelling was truly unimportant, we never would have bothered to invent proper spellings to start with. When a word is jumbled the human mind attempts to un-jumble the words such that the letters match a word that we already know. We need something to base this process off, which is why having the first letter in the proper position is necessary. By leaving multiple spelling errors you're only distracting your reader from your central point.
"Perhaps I am anal-retentive but it most certainly would bother me. The point of debate is to create well thought our"
Well thought our what? I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying. But it's okay I'll just vote you down because you can't make any sense. Thanks for playing.
So is there a double standard now? You've been arguing that spelling and grammar should have no impact on the voting process and suddenly I make a minor mistake and you attack me on it? Well played.
You are missing the point... There are people here who cannot spell a single one of the posts correctly, and then there is every one else who makes the occasional spelling/grammar error. My point in creating this debate was in regards to those I first mentioned, the ones who consistently don't take the time or effort to make sure that their post is at least mostly spelled right.
This is only the case for native English readers. For those who might not know English as well, poor spelling and grammar makes things more difficult to understand.
It is a matter of respect to those reading your debate to take the time to make sure you are spelling things correctly. Again, a typo or two is one thing...
Why should I find laziness acceptable? Why does that make me someone with ADD or anal retentive? Having standards is some thing that each society has.
Regardless, this is still no reason to discount an argument in a debate.
Imagine listening to a real debate. Would you completely ignore the arguments a person is making because they stumble over their words or stutter? No, that would be silly. (as in ZOMG that guy can't talk, FAIL!)
I agree! Just because someone is throwing food whilst debating or hurling expletives, that has nothing to do with the actual debate. We should dodge the food, ignore the insults and pay attention to what they're saying.
To vote down an argument because of spelling is just wrong. The content of the argument is more important that thy way it's spelled. I can admit that I make mistakes when I'm typing so I don't let it bother me all too much. But some mistakes are just awful and it can get annoying. Look at the argument and if you can read it then it's fine. If you can't I would say vote it down. It really depends on how it's written. Just don't vote down because your OCD.
OK it may take a little time to figure out what someone is saying who cant spell. Doses that mean if everything is spelt correctly it is automaticaly understood. I cant spell and I think a lost of people are just to snobbish abaout it. I love being able to tex people because ther are no snobby rules
it is also a matter of respect to take the time to realise that the person who cant spell may woop your ase in cards. Would you therefor deny them a game as you no your not verry good at cards
If I had to spell check everything I wouldn't get anything done.
Its probably impossible to understand if you can spell but I could spend 5 minuits just checking 1 word. If I had to do that i couldn't debate anything.
Infact ivejust used this spell check and ther are 3 pssibilitys for minuit. I dont know wich one it is correct though.
What you're saying is that you're too lazy to take thirty seconds (or less) to either a) click a button or b) click a word with a squiggly line underneath it in order to make your message readable and convincing. Sorry, I'm not buying it. The spell checker on CD is powerful enough that it managed to fix most of the errors in the last paragraph of your debate in thirty seconds. As for the three possibilities, if you actually knew how to use a word then you aught to be able to recognize it immediately even if you can't spell it.
