Outside of Video-based Debates, 100 character max each round is too few for arguments
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 100
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
translation of title: unless it's a video debate, debates shouldn't be allowed to have 100 max characters per round. (meaning that DART should increase this limit)
Opponent may not argue that 100 max characters is too few even to link to video debates, that is not the topic.
Video-based debate: A link on youtube (or some other site) which holds the two people having the discussion and the link is copy pasted onto DART. This is the only reason I can see for 100 max characters.
Arg--Con used a simple syllogism which con did not refute. Pro also "half-conceded" in his round 2 saying one arg is not enough, in a debate but this debate says "100 character max each round is too few for arguments". Points to Con.
Sources-- I am leaning towards con on this. Pro, make sure your sources are on topic as your first three rounds were not really on topic.
Grammar-- Pro mainly included incomplete sentences that did not include simple words like "a an is" and look at his first round:
avg word 5 char, avg essay need at least 200~300 words [v.gd/argsh]. 100 char too few for good arg!!
Pro used more abbreviations and I had to read it over and over again to understand what he is trying to say.
Conduct--both did well.
Oro demonstrated that a simple syllogism can be a very concise and persuasive, Pro's rebuttal actually wound up conceding the whole point by implying that 100 characters can be enough for some debates despite it being inappropriate for most.
Argument: Con's arguments were clever and successful diversions from the debate proposal. Pro's arguments were thereby successfully rebutted. Points to Con.
Sources: Cons sources were all on point; reliable. Pro had but two sources, both were off topic to the debate proposal. One's subject was essay, not debate. The other was about benefits of debating; character count had no relevance. Points to Con
S&G and Conduct both tied.
Con managed a syllogism with Socrates at only 65 characters. Pro's challenge fell short of dismissing that.
Honestly, any number will be pretty arbitrary.
A very cogent argument was put forth by CON, the very act of PRO making a convincing argument would undermine his case, I inclined with PRO that informal debates undermine the arguments porduced by both sides untill CON made the above mentioned argument.
I think CON saved the best for last, he made a fresh argument in the last round when PRO cannot furnish a rebuttal, thereby losing points for conduct.
Arguments: Con. Con is the only one that made acceptable and complete arguments. Pro did only make the documents speak for itself with no logic within it, so it counts not as an actual argument. Just copy-pasting document links does not make it valid unless you explain it. Con did it more than Pro.
Con also wrote complete arguments in 100 characters, which would mean Con fulfilled his BoP. Pro did not.
Sources: Con. Con used sources for most things that makes whatever he writes TRUE whereas Pro's sources are irrelevant: The first source of Pro merely presents the norm but ignores that this is no normal debate. The second is not an argument at all. On the other hand, Con presented relevant definitions and explanations that are relevant to and only to his brief arguments, which I consider sufficient.
S&G: Con. Con used complete words throughout whereas Pro used abbreviations which are a little less readable.
Conduct: Tie. Both persons did a good job trying to prove their sides.
over 2 years
I like having an upvote feature, but would be against a downvote feature.
thx for voting!
That seems like a well informed critique to me
Not really. I think what it is is the overflow of disrespectful and non-serious users and subreddits. However, I think it is unfit for Dart consider it will probably make DART less serious connecting it to Reddit.
I see. Do you feel like the up/down option contributes to that app's poor reputation?
The score idea. Reddit is known to have an upvote and downvote function.
sorry to be so ignorant but I've never tried Reddit based on that app's trollish reputation, so I'm uncertain to what you refer. Are you saying that in response to my score idea or in response to this debate or general political atmosphere or something else?
watchoowut?
I swear DART is turning into reddit, except the posts are debates.
DebateArt.com:
"The like button will be back, don't worry"
what if instead of like we had a score? Any user could apply a one time score to any comment, +2, 1, 0, -1, -2. Negative scores would bring positive rankings and positive scores would improve negative scores. The current overall score would be visible in the upper right hand corner of each comment.
Just don't make any 100 char debates and don't accept any 100 char debates and you are covered
R3 SOURCES:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2243-outside-of-video-based-debates-100-character-max-each-round-is-too-few-for-arguments?argument_number=1
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2243-outside-of-video-based-debates-100-character-max-each-round-is-too-few-for-arguments?argument_number=2
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQDPzct2xbkA9lT6IB9yRUHzKYsY01dSDev0Q&usqp=CAU
this was seriously too tough lol plz increase 100 char limit
The like button will be back, don't worry
R2 SOURCES:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/concede
https://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates
No one should, but they could.
#TakeTheLikeButtonBack
I don't see the point of having 100 char limit only to have a doc with much bigger char limit
I'd like your comment but I just noticed that thumbs up is gone in new format.
"like"
For ideas, you could fit an entire word document in 100 character urls since they didn't limit document debates.
R1 SOURCES:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Syllogism
https://dwheeler.com/essays/all-men-are-mortal.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg
https://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/the-last-words-of-socrates-at-the-place-where-he-died/
Lol I like this one
Hard to make the argument that there's not enough characters, without using more characters.
👆🏻 92 characters.