Instigator / Pro
0
1541
rating
27
debates
53.7%
won
Topic

Yahoo Answers closing down on April 20th is a real opportunity for DebateArt users to help acquire more debaters and donaters

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two hours
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
0
1612
rating
343
debates
65.6%
won
Description
~ 524 / 5,000

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5912-yahoo-answers-is-shutting-down-on-april-20th-chance-to-get-some-more-debaters-and-donaters

This debate is regarding the topic I posted in the forum, which can be found in the link above.
I think as many users from DebateArt as possible should use this opportunity to go to Yahoo Answers and answer as many questions as possible leaving a link to DebateArt and advising desperate Yahoo Answers users that this is a good alternative.
It is an opportunity that should not be missed.

Round 1
Pro
Welcome RationalMadman and good luck with this quickfire debate

First I will begin to welcoming the good RationalMadman to this debate, and wish him good luck.

Yahoo Answers is closing down on April 20th

I will now move on to announcing that Yahoo Answers is closing down on April 20th.

Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and, as of 20 April 2021 (Eastern Time), the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Addicted Yahoo Answers users are panicking, and desperately asking for advice on what will be a good replacement

At the moment, many users of Yahoo Answers are actually panicking regards how to spend their time now that their favourite question and Answers website is closing down. I will provide a few examples "from the hundreds" below:

If we can't ask questions on yahoo answers where will we ask questions for now on? ?
What are some good alternatives of Yahoo Answer? ?
What's a good replacement for yahoo answers?
And believe me, there are "hundreds" more just like the ones above.

Yahoo platform has similar interests to DebateArt

Whilst Yahoo Answers was not a debate site, they did once have a comment section and the users on the Yahoo Answers website were "notorious" for using the section to debate.  Also, Yahoo Answers has a similar list of categories to Debate Art, meaning many users from Yahoo Answers might actually find coming on to Debate Art to Debate their favourite subjects a good replacement.

Their list of categories include, Arts & Humanities. Beauty & Style. Business & Finance. Cars & Transportation. Computers & Internet. Consumer electronics. Dining out. Education & reference. Entertainment & Music. Environment. Family & Relationships. Food & Drink. Games & Recreation. Health. Home & Garden. Local Businesses. News & Events. Pets. Politics & Government. Pregnancy & Parenting. Science & Mathematics. Social science. Society & Culture. Sports. Travel. Yahoo products. And many many more sub categories.

Leaderboard

Their website also operates a points system and their users obsessed with their points amount and their position in the leaderboard league table.

Part of a community

But above all, many of those users want to be part of a community which has similar interests and enjoyments to them.
I personally also enjoy all the ideals of DebateArt and Yahoo Answers.

Need to act now

However we need to act fast as it will not be long before some entrepreneur buys the web domain YA2, if they have not already.

DebateArt does not operate for free

I will now highlight that DebateArt is not operating for free. Below is an estimate of their disclosed costs.

  • Virtual private server: ~10$ and more
  • Files storage and access: ~3$ and more
  • Emails delivery: ~2$ and more
  • Monitoring: ~15$
  • Continuous integration: Free, but may change in the future as our requirements rise


  • Chance to get "free" users, which makes it more fun for us. The busier the better

    Now lets face it, the busier the place is and the quicker things are firing, the more fun it is.
    But not only that, this can help DebateArt achieve something for free that would otherwise cost advertising money.

    It's worth noting that maintenance expenses are not the only reason to attract funds. Extra funds can be used to attract new people to the website, for example via advertisements on Google or Facebook. Also the funds can be used to delegate some work to the third parties, a great example would be the development of the website's mobile version. Other less technical reasons would be to buy some beer for the moderators and the developers, or to buy some nice things that we could give away as presents to the winners of the debate tournaments.
    Snowball effect

    So long as there are enough of us here to make sure that the first Yahoo Answers users that come here, get what they want, and that is a good debate on their favourite subject then the snowball effect should kick in and even more users should appear. Once there is enough users the donations will also increase and that will hopefully result in an even better and more improved platform for all of us.

    Why should we make no effort? Why is it a bad idea?

    Now I will pass the debate to RationalMadman whom has to explain why he thinks this is not an opportunity for DebateArt to gain more users, and why existing users from DebateArt should not get themselves over to Yahoo Answers right now and advertise this platform as a suitable replacement for their current addiction.

    Even if the effort only brought one new regular debater or donater would that not be positive?

    Thank you to RationalMadman and good luck.
    Con
    Legal and Moral responsibility.
    We do not pay money to be members of Yahoo Answers. It's free and the only price we are asked to pay is that we abide by their terms and conditions (only direct price anyway, you can make conspiracy claims about data usage but Yahoo is hardly a significant player in that 'game').

    So, let's see what Yahoo says about advertising on their platform.

    Exploiting the community
    Yahoo Answers is a place to gain knowledge, not customers, page views, or dates. If you have years of experience in something, have a special hobby, own your own business, or if you are a knowledge partner, it's OK to accompany a good, on-topic answer with a link to your website, blog, or email to offer more information. However, it is not OK to post links that are unrelated to the topic or are clearly meant only to solicit others for personal and financial gain. Also prohibited are solicitations like "Will you add me as a contact?" or propositioning people.

    Yahoo has a business model that includes paying them to advertise for you (they claim they try to streamline it and for instance on a Yahoo Answers page about what your product is, they will definitely try to deliver the ad:

    If DebateArt wishes to advertise on Yahoo it should pay them to do so. Furthermore, to specifically advertise on Yahoo Answers while it's dying is truly kicking the injured dog while it's down, one of the scummiest moves you can do, show some respect.

    This being said, what about debating...?

    Debating isn't the same as friendly answers
    While, via sub-comment-threads, you can somewhat debate, sites like Quora and Reddit are much more tailored towards that dynamic than Yahoo Answers.

    Yahoo Answers attracted the type of people who wanted quick and accurate answers from people, it was up to the one asking and those reading to decide which was better or worse (this could be influenced via upvotes but the asker can 'VIP-status' the best reply regardless of upvotes or downvotes). DebateArt is much more about fighting or exploring ideas in-depth with long conversations, the type of people who will remain on DebateArt long-term are not really the type to enjoy the friendly 'I ask, you answer, no further discussion' dynamic of Yahoo Answers.

    You don't know what the DebateArt mods will do to you or how bad you personally will make this website look.
    You know, for now, what the site is. It's run by 2 mods who have complete discretion to ban and/or punish as they see fit as well as an owner who remains anonymous and goes by the name 'Mike' or 'Michael' on here. He claims to be from Russia but if you look at the website's 'whois' it's a self-proclaimed proxy/VPN with all details hidden. 


    Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru
    This is not doxxing because if it revealed anything too personal, I'd definitely not post it here. The reason I am speaking about it, is that we genuinely have a faceless owner of the website who we don't truly know or trust. He is absolutely entitled to hide his/her details for privacy reasons. The issue is also that we don't know what you will do for the rest of your life and how you personally, or the other users you encourage to mass-advertise, will make DebateArt look when and if you or the others do something scandalous (especially on that Yahoo account).

    Who will it attract?
    Who are you attracting? If you post en masse about DebateArt to Yahoo Answers, you'll probably capture the eye of bots, frauds, trolls you get the idea. Nothing about this strategy ensures a decent percentage of people who come to the website are keen to use it long-term.
    Round 2
    Pro
    "When users that answer questions and Yahoo Answers and leave a link to Wikipedia bring Wikipedia in to disrepute when they get involved in a scandal? No.".

    Thank you to RM for posting his first round argument

    I will begin by thanking RM for posting his round 1 argument

    DebateArt is also free to use

    I fail to see the relevance of RationalMadmans opening argument. Quite simply DebateArt is also free to use and donations are voluntary, and DebateArt also only asks that users abide by the terms & conditions which are perfectly reasonable.

    RationalMadman wrote...
    We do not pay money to be members of Yahoo Answers. It's free and the only price we are asked to pay is that we abide by their terms and conditions (only direct price anyway, you can make conspiracy claims about data usage but Yahoo is hardly a significant player in that 'game').

    Yahoo Answers policy on using their platform to advertise

    RationalMadman's next argument is that it is against Yahoo Answers policy to conduct this type of advertising campaign.

    RationalMadman wrote...
    So, let's see what Yahoo says about advertising on their platform.

    DebateArt non affiliation

    I don't know about other users here, but I personally am in no way affiliated with DebateArt and DebateArt cannot be held responsible for my actions, and DebateArt had no knowledge of my idea prior to me posting it.

    I am merely a user of both DebateArt and Yahoo Answers.

    I would like to add however that Yahoo Answers has been without moderation for quite some time and has been left in the hands of bots, and the platform is now pretty much self moderated.

    I am also not suggesting that the owners of DebateArt encourage this and I do not know their opinion on the matter. What I am suggesting is that existing users of Yahoo Answers that are not affiliated with either site do this.

    Also, what is the worst that is going to happen even in the event that Yahoo Answers decide to take action against you? They suspend your account? Why are you worried? They are closing down next week anyway.

    Advertising policy

    Below we see that RationalMadman is still talking about somekind of advertising deal between DebateArt and Yahoo Answers. 

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Yahoo has a business model that includes paying them to advertise for you (they claim they try to streamline it and for instance on a Yahoo Answers page about what your product is, they will definitely try to deliver the ad:

    Leafleting

    I am not involved in any business deal between DebateArt and Yahoo answers whereby Yahoo Answers will sell the owners of DebateArt the rights to officially advertise on their platform. Though, it may be a good idea, the time would be right for something like that, if there ever was a good time.
    But, I am talking about something that would be more similar to leafleting. I will give an example below:

    Would Science & Mathematic users consider a debating website with a community forum a viable alternative?
    Answer

    I took a look, and in this category, it gets about 1 post every few days, not very active.

    there is no math category, just "science and nature"
    So we see above, Yahoo Answerers will consider a debating website but they want somewhere fast that is moving. And in the case of this Yahoo Answers user, he/she wants a Science & nature platform. 

    One regular customer for every five hundred leaflets

    As a person that once had part ownership of a taxi company I used to do a lot of leafleting myself, and they say that for every 500 leaflets you will likely get one customer, no matter how irregular.

    And this is what I am talking about. I am talking about users quite simply putting out feeders on Yahoo Answers that would be the equivalent to doing a little bit of leafleting.

    DebateArt should pay for advertising

    RationalMadman wrote...
    If DebateArt wishes to advertise on Yahoo it should pay them to do so. Furthermore, to specifically advertise on Yahoo Answers while it's dying is truly kicking the injured dog while it's down, one of the scummiest moves you can do, show some respect.
    But, I am not affiliated with DebateArt, and as far as I am aware neither are you. Though I could be wrong.
    I am not talking about DebateArt advertising on Yahoo Answers, I am talking about "you" putting out a few feeders on their website in questions and answers with a link to this webasite.

    Am I not correct that you are a completely seperate entity from both DebateArt and Yahoo Answers?

    Debating isn't the same as friendly answers

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Yahoo Answers attracted the type of people who wanted quick and accurate answers from people, it was up to the one asking and those reading to decide which was better or worse (this could be influenced via upvotes but the asker can 'VIP-status' the best reply regardless of upvotes or downvotes). DebateArt is much more about fighting or exploring ideas in-depth with long conversations, the type of people who will remain on DebateArt long-term are not really the type to enjoy the friendly 'I ask, you answer, no further discussion' dynamic of Yahoo Answers.

    I am not sure exactly how many users use Yahoo Answers, but they have "hundreds" of people asking for an alternative to Yahoo Answers in the Yahoo Answers section alone. "hundreds", i repeat. In one section alone.

    I am sure if enough feeders are put out that at least one or two regular users that enjoy a good debate could be found.

    You don't know what the DebateArt mods will do to you or how bad you personally will make this website look.

    RationalMadman wrote...
    You know, for now, what the site is. It's run by 2 mods who have complete discretion to ban and/or punish as they see fit as well as an owner who remains anonymous and goes by the name 'Mike' or 'Michael' on here. He claims to be from Russia but if you look at the website's 'whois' it's a self-proclaimed proxy/VPN with all details hidden. 
    That is a viable argument. Obviously we are wanting to improve the platform as opposed to destroy it.
    Can you think of any arguments for the next round how exactly this would destroy the reputation of DebateArt, considering that the Yahoo Answer users are claiming to be working from their own backs and for their own purposes? Quite simply, because they want more users to debate with and they want a busier community to discuss topics with in the forum section?

    Security protection

    RationalMadman wrote...
    This is not doxxing because if it revealed anything too personal, I'd definitely not post it here. The reason I am speaking about it, is that we genuinely have a faceless owner of the website who we don't truly know or trust. He is absolutely entitled to hide his/her details for privacy reasons. The issue is also that we don't know what you will do for the rest of your life and how you personally, or the other users you encourage to mass-advertise, will make DebateArt look when and if you or the others do something scandalous (especially on that Yahoo account).
    TBH you can post anonymous on Yahoo Answers and nobody even knows who you are, and nobody would know about  any other scandal you are involved with except the Yahoo Answers moderation team that do not disclose your details to other users.

    I am not even suggesting "advertising" on yahoo answers as such.

    Simply answer a question and leave a link to a debate on DebateArt as your source.

    When users that answer questions on Yahoo Answers and leave a link to Wikipedia bring Wikipedia in to disrepute when they get involved in a scandal? No.

    Who will it attract?

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Who are you attracting? If you post en masse about DebateArt to Yahoo Answers, you'll probably capture the eye of bots, frauds, trolls you get the idea. Nothing about this strategy ensures a decent percentage of people who come to the website are keen to use it long-term.
    DebateArt does not know who they are going to attract anyway, and you never know who you are going to attract even when advertising.
    Who does Wikipedia attract when their links get left all over the internet? 

    Comment section concerns

    I will now point to some general concerns from the comment section.

    One user wrote...
    Hate to agree with RM, but Yahoo users will flock to Quora and probably pass us by.
    There is no doubt about it that the overwhelming vast majority of users will flock to Quora, and Quora gets "free" advertising on yahoo answers all the time. But users can use more than one platform you know. And even though Quora will get thousands, that is not to say DebateArt could not still get one or two, at least.

    Quora free advertising

    Now lets take a look at the free advertising Quora gets on Yahoo Answers. I will provide a small list of examples below:

    And just look at this one. "Why does quora so much better than Yahoo Answers? And RM is worried that Yahoo Answers might look negatively upon him if he tries to link to Debate Art, or even mentions DebateArt? Do Quora seem concerned about what type of user this may attract? This is simply free advertising for Quora, bad advertising for Yahoo Answers, and yet Yahoo Answers allowed it to remain.

    Why is quora so much better than yahoo answers?

    Why do people on Quora ask many questions about law & interact with semi-famous people or people who've been through a lot? 
    Anyway, you will find hundreds more like this, but I am not out to advertise Quora, so two examples is enough.

    Thank you to RM for his round 1 argument. I look forward to round 2
    Con
    DA=DebateArt
    Pro opens telling use that DA is free too. What would DA think if Yahoo Answers users advertised on this website?

    I can give you a hint, a recent ban:

    Just to be clear, when the mods say 'spambot' for the ban reason, it is a general term they use even for human advertisers. I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying I have seen that term used for any kind of advertising account.

    So, if Pro is trying to equate DA to Yahoo Answers in that way, then surely we should pay them the respect we wish users and owners of other sites pay us.

    ==

    The rest of Pro's rebuttals revolve around the idea that we should be free to advertise there because Wikipedia pages can be linked to.

    The debate's description (agreed to by both parties upon the Contender accepting the debate) outlines an agenda of advertising on as many Yahoo Answer threads as possible. It even explicitly frames what is happening as us preying on the desperation of the users there.

    Yahoo requires you to pay for advertising. This debate's title itself specifies potential members donating to the website's Patreon as a motive to get them here. In what shape or form is the motive not financial and corrupt? Yahoo will still exist as a search engine, email provider and general news source (yes, Yahoo News exists, I know many are unware, it even has different homepages for different countries especially English-speaking ones with News specific for them).

    Yahoo Answers shutting down isn't the same as Yahoo as a whole ceasing to exist. You are poaching members away from a company that provides paid-for advertising opportunities that it will try and hit audiences your product will appeal to. It explicitly states it doesn't approve of using the service to advertise, users are not advertising Wikipedia if they post a page specific to that.

    Unless you solely link to DA thread posts and debates that are specific to the Yahoo Answers question, you are violating their policy. The nature of acting on the Debate Description's model of advertising isn't at all to stratify it in this way.

    ==

    It doesn't matter if you know you aren't affiliated with DA, other don't know that. In fact, other trolls or all kinds of users may advertise to DA for the hell of it once we begin, it may even become a Meme to advertise DA in a negative and sarcastic way. Such as, "oh hi there, the answer to your question is that pooping your pants will cure malaria" then linking to a completely irrelevant DA thread (or worse to a seemingly relevant-named one that doesn't actually support that). It also could evolve into finding actual post fringe members with edgy opinions made and referencing them sarcastically to troll. This could backfire very much on DA and its members could unintentionally become too famous, which ruins the very appeal this website has over something like Quora or social media in general (privacy and ability to speak relatively freely with harsh clashes of opinion that don't backfire on your real identity).

    On a separate note, if we aren't affiliate with DA what right do we have to advertise on its behalf? We'd in essence be impersonating a member of staff affiliated with this website, over there on Yahoo Answers and the reputation of DA would be attached to us and vice versa. This is about more than legal repercussions, I am talking of morality and the concept of what advertising is and who has the right to do it for a company, on a philosophical level.
    Round 3
    Pro
    Welcome back RationalMadman and good luck

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Pro opens telling use that DA is free too. What would DA think if Yahoo Answers users advertised on this website? I can give you a hint, a recent ban:
    As I am not encouraging "advertising ", and as I am "not" advertising any other site, I really do not know. And I have no comment to make on Selinwine. This is none of my business and it is confidential.
    All I am arguing is that now would be a great time for "users" to answer lots of Yahoo Answers questions and drop as many links to this website as possible as a source.
    Just like one might drop a link to  Yahoo Answers as a source during one of their debates. 

    We should pay Yahoo Answers to allow us to leave links to debates in our answers

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Just to be clear, when the mods say 'spambot' for the ban reason, it is a general term they use even for human advertisers. I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying I have seen that term used for any kind of advertising account.

    So, if Pro is trying to equate DA to Yahoo Answers in that way, then surely we should pay them the respect we wish users and owners of other sites pay us.


    This is both a good idea and bad idea.

    Bad idea

    First I will explain why it is a bad idea.
    Absolutely nobody in their right mind is going to pay anyone for the privelage of being allowed to leave a couple of links in an answer as a source.
    There is absolutely no way in this world that Yahoo Answers or Wikipedia would agree to pay debateart a penny every time a user leaves a link to wikipedia in their source.
    And whilst I cannot speak for the owners of debateart, I would be very surprised if the owners of debateart would agree to pay Yahoo Answers to allow their users to leave links to debateart debates as their source. Especially not when Yahoo Answers would allow them to do this for free anyway, as it is already standard practise to leave a link to your source in an answer. In fact, it is frowned upon not to.
    This is not the same thing as "advertising".

    Good idea

    However, it is also a good idea. Perhaps if we all have a whip round and make a small monthly donation to DebateArt we could actually collect enough money so that the owners of DebateArt actually "could" afford to strike a deal to advertise on Yahoo Answers during their final week. Though I am under no elusions that this is unlikely to happen.

    We should be free to Advertise on Yahoo Answers

    RationalMadman wrote...
    The rest of Pro's rebuttals revolve around the idea that we should be free to advertise there because Wikipedia pages can be linked to.

    The debate's description (agreed to by both parties upon the Contender accepting the debate) outlines an agenda of advertising on as many Yahoo Answer threads as possible. It even explicitly frames what is happening as us preying on the desperation of the users there.
    I am not saying that we should advertise on Yahoo Answers.
    I am saying that existing users could do worse than leave links to DebateArt in their answers. As a source.
    Or simply answer questions such as "what websites shall I use now that Yahoo Answers is shutting down", with a reply and link. Simply state that you love DebateArt, it is real fun and leave a link as a source. You know, that kind of thing. 

    Yahoo requires you to pay for advertising

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Yahoo requires you to pay for advertising. This debate's title itself specifies potential members donating to the website's Patreon as a motive to get them here. In what shape or form is the motive not financial and corrupt? Yahoo will still exist as a search engine, email provider and general news source (yes, Yahoo News exists, I know many are unware, it even has different homepages for different countries especially English-speaking ones with News specific for them).
    Yahoo Answers does not require you to pay them to allow you to leave an answer to a question with a link as a source. If they do you have the option to go and use a different site. Such as Quora for questions and answers, and DebateArt for debates. 

    Poaching yahoo answers members

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Yahoo Answers shutting down isn't the same as Yahoo as a whole ceasing to exist. You are poaching members away from a company that provides paid-for advertising opportunities that it will try and hit audiences your product will appeal to. It explicitly states it doesn't approve of using the service to advertise, users are not advertising Wikipedia if they post a page specific to that.
    Your argument is way to extreme.
    Nobody will be poaching Yahoo Answers customers and people are free to use both sites as they see fit. It is not one or the other.
    Also you can find debates on this site that is specific to the question you are answering. I am not saying to go over and spam their platform with mindless vandalism. The link still has to be appropriate.

    Link only to threads that pertain to the subject

    RationalMadman wrote...
    Unless you solely link to DA thread posts and debates that are specific to the Yahoo Answers question, you are violating their policy. The nature of acting on the Debate Description's model of advertising isn't at all to stratify it in this way.
    That is "exactly" what I am suggesting. Simply to answer questions and use threads on DebateArt that pertain to the subject, as opposed to Quora or Wikipedia.
    I think you are getting it now.

    Irrational argument

    RationalMadman wrote...
    It doesn't matter if you know you aren't affiliated with DA, other don't know that. In fact, other trolls or all kinds of users may advertise to DA for the hell of it once we begin, it may even become a Meme to advertise DA in a negative and sarcastic way. Such as, "oh hi there, the answer to your question is that pooping your pants will cure malaria" then linking to a completely irrelevant DA thread (or worse to a seemingly relevant-named one that doesn't actually support that). It also could evolve into finding actual post fringe members with edgy opinions made and referencing them sarcastically to troll. This could backfire very much on DA and its members could unintentionally become too famous, which ruins the very appeal this website has over something like Quora or social media in general (privacy and ability to speak relatively freely with harsh clashes of opinion that don't backfire on your real identity).
    This is all if buts and maybes. You have made  good argument up until now but the imagination is running riot here.
    DebateArt is not going to end up in the national headlines as a laughing stock just because a few users linked to the website instead of Quora or Wikipedia.

    What right do we have to advertise on its behalf

    RationalMadman wrote
    On a separate note, if we aren't affiliate with DA what right do we have to advertise on its behalf? We'd in essence be impersonating a member of staff affiliated with this website, over there on Yahoo Answers and the reputation of DA would be attached to us and vice versa. This is about more than legal repercussions, I am talking of morality and the concept of what advertising is and who has the right to do it for a company, on a philosophical level.
    If I answer a question in history on Yahoo Answers and I leave a link to one of my debates as a source, so long as it pertains to the subject and I am confident the information is at least semi accurate then I am not advertising for anyone. I am acting off my own back and conducting in what is standard practise all over the internet already.
    It is already standard practise to leave links as sources to answers and debates.
    I am merely suggesting that this would be a good time  to answer as many questions as possible.
    However it is not an advertising campaign. The user does so off their own back and nobody will even know whether they did or did not.
    Simple as that really.
    It really is an individual effort and completely up to the individual whether or not they decide to answer questions on Yahoo Answers and leave links to their debates on DebateArt to support their answer.

    Thank you RationalMadman, good luck next round



    Con
    Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed-upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Usually the "losing" side in an argument deploys this gambit in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard - if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic).

    In the debate's description, the scope of this debate is as follows:

    I think as many users from DebateArt as possible should use this opportunity to go to Yahoo Answers and answer as many questions as possible leaving a link to DebateArt and advising desperate Yahoo Answers users that this is a good alternative.
    It is an opportunity that should not be missed.
    Yet when I focus on this burden of proof for Pro, Pro keeps replying things such as:
    I am not saying to go over and spam their platform with mindless vandalism. The link still has to be appropriate.

    However it is not an advertising campaign. The user does so off their own back and nobody will even know whether they did or did not.
    Simple as that really.
    It really is an individual effort and completely up to the individual whether or not they decide to answer questions on Yahoo Answers and leave links to their debates on DebateArt to support their answer.

    Yahoo Answers does not require you to pay them to allow you to leave an answer to a question with a link as a source. 
    These are all false, intentionally deceptive rebuttals because they were replied even to my direct rebuttals to similar points like them in the previous Round.

    Pro is completely moving the goalposts so that his side is a truism and my side is incapable of being upheld.

    If this debate was solely about posting links to Debate Art threads and debates that are 100% related to the accurate and in-depth answer given on Yahoo Answers, I would not have accepted this debate. Furthermore, if this were about one user (Pro) doing it on his/her own volition and intending to help people using this website's content, I would not have accepted the debate.

    I accepted the debate because what Pro assumed was a truism (clear by how he keeps moving the goalposts) has ended up being clearly difficult for him to uphold. Consequently, Pro is resorting to severe goalpost movement to pretend I have made no valid points.

    All my points remain. None at all have been successfully rebuked nor do they demand any other rebuttal back at them than explicitly stating the goalpost-movement being done.

    I shan't waste time of you reader posting unnessary volumes of text, I made my case and stand by it, read the previous 2 Rounds. 
    Round 4
    Pro
    Welcome back RM, good luck

    RationalMadman quoted...
    Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed-upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Usually the "losing" side in an argument deploys this gambit in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard - if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic).
    Whilst my idea of how my title could be achieved has evolved since debating you, nowhere has it evolved so much that it invalidates what is in my title. 
    And, nowhere is the word "advertising" mentioned.

    Debate title
    Yahoo Answers closing down on April 20th is a real opportunity for DebateArt users to help acquire more debaters and donaters
    Debate Description

    Nowhere in my debate description have I used the word "advertising".

    Debate description...
    This debate is regarding the topic I posted in the forum, which can be found in the link above.
    I think as many users from DebateArt as possible should use this opportunity to go to Yahoo Answers and answer as many questions as possible leaving a link to DebateArt and advising desperate Yahoo Answers users that this is a good alternative.
    It is an opportunity that should not be missed.
    What has evolved after debating RM (This is the great thing about debates, ideas evolve) is how my debate title and debate description would legally be carried out.
    Not only could users simply link to DebateArt whilst answering "Where am i going to go now?" questions, but also in questions in other categories. Such as history for example. 
    A good way of a user acquiring debaters for themself would be to answer a question in history and use one of their debates regarding this subject as their source.
    I suppose there is another legitimate way, and that is when asking questions about your debate, and asking for ideas on what would be the best argument, one could link to the debate they are asking about.
    But this is the kind of thing I am meaning. Not advertising.
    But it does not matter how much my argument has evolved, it is still within the boundary of the title "Yahoo Answers closing down on April 20th is a real opportunity for DebateArt users to help acquire more debaters and donaters", and I am still pro this idea, and I assume my opponent is still against this idea, and thinks that this is not a good opportunity for users to acquire more debaters for themselves to debate.

    Spam their forum within vandalism

    RationalMadman quoted and wrote...
    I think as many users from DebateArt as possible should use this opportunity to go to Yahoo Answers and answer as many questions as possible leaving a link to DebateArt and advising desperate Yahoo Answers users that this is a good alternative.
    It is an opportunity that should not be missed.
    Yet when I focus on this burden of proof for Pro, Pro keeps replying things such as:
    I am not saying to go over and spam their platform with mindless vandalism. The link still has to be appropriate.
    Nowhere in my description did I advise users to go over and spam their platform with vandalism, and even if I did, debating you would have changed my mind and helped me improve upon my vision. However I am still pro "Yahoo Answers closing down on April 20th is a real opportunity for DebateArt users to help acquire more debaters and donaters", and I assume you are still against it.

    Moving goalposts

    RationalMadman wrote...
    These are all false, intentionally deceptive rebuttals because they were replied even to my direct rebuttals to similar points like them in the previous Round.

    Pro is completely moving the goalposts so that his side is a truism and my side is incapable of being upheld.
    The debate is evolving and ideas evolve and improve, and since debating you my ideas for how the title can be achieved have improved and evolved, not deteriorated.
    Nothing stays the same RM, not even debates. They evolve or deteriorate.

    RationalMadman now agrees with me, but thinks I mislead him

    RationalMadman wrote...
    If this debate was solely about posting links to Debate Art threads and debates that are 100% related to the accurate and in-depth answer given on Yahoo Answers, I would not have accepted this debate. Furthermore, if this were about one user (Pro) doing it on his/her own volition and intending to help people using this website's content, I would not have accepted the debate.
    Nowhere in the description did I contradict any of those ideas either.
    However you are now on the same side as me.  Which is a deterioration in your argument.
    I do apologise if I mislead you. I did not do so intentionally. And I don't think I have really. But winning or losing this debate is secondary. My main intentions are to establish how we can use the current situation to improve our own wants, which is a busier site with lots of intelligent and well mannered users that enjoy debating.
    You did make many good suggestions however regarding the legal aspect which has help me best establish how I should word my suggestion to users and exactly what it is I am suggesting. 

    Goalpost movements

    RationalMadman wrote.
    I accepted the debate because what Pro assumed was a truism (clear by how he keeps moving the goalposts) has ended up being clearly difficult for him to uphold. Consequently, Pro is resorting to severe goalpost movement to pretend I have made no valid points.
    You made many valid points in the previous rounds.
    But I do note that you have dropped the legal aspect and the advertising argument as you appear to realise that those two arguments no longer apply.
    You say it is because I mislead you? Maybe I did. I don't think so, not intentionally anyway.

    All my points remain. None at all have been successfully rebuked nor do they demand any other rebuttal back at them than explicitly stating the goalpost-movement being done.

    RationalMadman wrote...
    I shan't waste time of you reader posting unnessary volumes of text, I made my case and stand by it, read the previous 2 Rounds. 
    I am starting to get confused now.
    Your points from round 1 and 2 still remain? Yet you would not have taken the debate on had you known beforehand that those points were moot? Maybe you are changing the goalposts? No, I take that back. One should not need to accuse you of such a thing in order to win or lose a debate.

    Thank you to RationalMadman for the brilliant arguments that have helped this debate and ideas evolve
    Con
    The debate is evolving and ideas evolve and improve, and since debating you my ideas for how the title can be achieved have improved and evolved, not deteriorated.
    Nothing stays the same RM, not even debates. They evolve or deteriorate.
    LOL! My opponent admits what he's done.

    I guess I evolved to resist his adaptation then? I out-evolved his evolution? Don't know what kind of thing this is.

    Anyway, I reiterate a point from Round 1:

    The type of user that Yahoo Answers attracts tends to enjoy quickfire ask-and-answer interactions, it's not really the dynamic DA has.
    Round 5
    Pro
    Good luck again

    RationalMadman wrote...
    LOL! My opponent admits what he's done.
    What have I done wrong? You expect me to just repeat my round 1 argument over and over? All I have done is improve and evolve with every argument. That is what is supposed to happen. But I certainly have not relinquished my position on the matter.
    I would say you have however. You now appear to be more Pro than Con.

    Yahoo Answers respondent prefers longer debates and thinks this place is too quickfire, the opposite of what RationalMadman thinks, coincidentally

    RationalMadman wrote...
    The type of user that Yahoo Answers attracts tends to enjoy quickfire ask-and-answer interactions, it's not really the dynamic DA has.
    I personally think that quickfire is the best and most exciting way to play sport and games. You need to be able to do it fast. Though I still enjoy debates that have two weeks to write an essay. But I am sure Yahoo Answerers are a versatile bunch as well and some will prefer longer debates.

    In fact I have one right now that is thinking of signing up, and guess what, he likes longer debates. So this kind of negates your argument. Was also posted 2 hours ago, before this debate started, so it is not me writing it.

    2 hours ago
    maybe, depends on the rules and how it is moderated.

    Your link leads to a site where "debates" have a limited time. I'm not interested in such sites.  To me, *discussion* is about understanding eachother, and discussions last as long as they last - people bringing new arguments to the table.

    in other words: a thread ends when nobody contributes to it anymore.

    There's nothing wrong with people taking days to formulate a reply, or a discussion taking weeks

    Thanks again to RM, Good luck for round 5
    Con
    Pro has given us no evidence that it is likely users will come over and use the site long-term enough to think it's worth donating to. Pro has furthermore failed to justify the means, not just the ends and likelihood of attaining it.

    I say it can backfire and make people mock and push away potential members from DA based on the way they advertise and also said sites like Quora exist so how are we going to really have an 'opportunity' to take them away?

    Pro moved the goalposts, admitted it, claimed he and I are on the same side and believes he won this debate because he likes quickfire debates and knows someone who likes long ones.