Because there is no need to down-vote. And it's basically just an insult. It's a direct attempt to make someone look bad. It's not as goofy as responding to someone then banning them from a debate but still! When a particular user down-votes you almost every time you engage them, it gets a little irritating DANA!

Downvotes are fine, I feel the system should have a field to fill out though to justify why. This can help differentiate the votes that are due to difference of opinion versus finding faults with the arguments logic.

I've expressed my feelings on the shortcomings of the vote system before so I won't keep playing that tune.

TLDR: Arbitrary, emotional voting removes any usefulness that the debate scoring and efficiency systems might have. Even if a poster doesn't particularly care about those ratings, he or she should still have some consideration for those who do.

This is an internet discussion forum. A debate-themed one, certainly, but an internet discussion forum nonetheless. Internet discussion forums were, for most of the internet's history, almost exclusively occupied by geeky types, like myself. In more recent years, internet forums have attracted a more generally mainstream audience, but my observations suggest that there is still a geeky majority.

I can't speak for every geek, but for myself (and many that I know), we like numbers. Maybe we like to play fantasy football, maybe we like to play d&d;. Maybe we're programmers, mathematicians, maybe we work a desk job and just like to crunch numbers here and there. We went for the high scores in video games, and we go for the achievements in them now. We build strategies to get the best score we can.

That can be applied here to things like our debate score weighted by our effiency. Unfortunately, while it's easy to generate points quickly, the efficiency part of that equation is more difficult; it's not just making posts to get points, it's making effective, relevant, well thought out posts that get upvotes by the community.

When somebody starts downvoting because they simply disagree with someone or dislike them, it throws a wrench into things. Suddenly, we can't boost our 'score' simply by thinking out our arguments thoroughly and fleshing them out. Now, we have to make sure our stances agree with those held by people who are prone to mass downvoting. We have to adjust our online persona to make the people prone to mass downvoting like us.

And beyond breaking the metagame for math geeks, it also serves to dilute the usefulness of the 'efficiency' rating for a newer user. If voting on a post is an accurate reflection of an individuals debate skill and thought processes, it serves as a good measure of whether that person is worth debating or not. If voting on a post is, instead, a reflection of the popularity of the poster and his or her positions, then all the efficiency rating tells us is how well the posters personality and positions align with whatever is 'mainstream' for the site.

More short-term, It has an even greater impact on the 'score' for any given debate- which admittedly, some people flatout don't care about. Upvotes for posts in favor of one side give that side more points. Downvotes do the opposite. Can you see the problem with downvoting people who you simply disagree with here? The score should, at a glance, give the reader an overall idea of where the debate stands. With voting based on difference of opinion or how much one likes or dislikes a poster, the usefulness of the score is zero. I would think that, even if one doesn't particularly care about debate scores, he or she would still be willing to accept that some people do and would not go out of his or her way to disrupt them.

Well, I don't want to be obvious, but we know you don't care. Have you seen that dial up top of your profile? It's your efficiency, your total amount of points compared to your total amount of arguments. It represents your ability to successfully present arguments that the community deems worthy enough to be honored in a debate. It is, if anything, credibility.

I do not hold such negative feeling towards down votes, so much as I hold pensive feelings towards unrequited disagreement. The largest percentage of my arguments I put great thought into. While the largest portion of the down votes I've received, just like the largest portion of up votes I've received, were anonymous. When these random, reason less assessments (negative or positive)of my thought out arguments are given I can't help but to wonder. Not enough to make me moan at all, because of my out look in online debating, but just enough.

I'd prefer supports or disputes to accompany votes, just so I won't have to wonder, but ultimately I don't really care.

Down-votes are like throwing punches.... you throw a punch at me, and I'll throw one back. No biggie.