Dart vs DDO
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
BoP is shared.
Resolution: Dart is a better debating website than DDO was.
- a group of World Wide Web pages usually containing hyperlinks to each other and made available online by an individual, company, educational institution, government, or organization
- more attractive, favourable, or commendable
- more advantageous or effective
- improved in accuracy or performance
- a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
- a contention by words or arguments
- We are talking about two different groups of pages on the world wide web.
- We are comparing their effectiveness, performance, accuracy and attractiveness
- The most important aspect to analyse is the ability to have a regulated discussion -- in other words, the ability to write, read and analyse written arguments.
DDO has so many glitches it's literally unusable for proper debating or forum interaction. [RationalMadman]
- The resolution asked me to compare DART's present state and DDO's past state
- I can do everything within the boundaries
- I can compare DART's present state with DDO's prime state
- Debating websites are not infographic sites, compared to visual qualities, they more focus on the exchange of ideas, which are a part of the site
- DDO has done better in the exchange and flow of ideas and contribute to the community
- Therefore, DDO is the better out of the two.
- We are talking about two different groups of pages on the world wide web.
- We are comparing their effectiveness, performance, accuracy and attractiveness
- The most important aspect to analyse is the ability to have a regulated discussion -- in other words, the ability to write, read and analyse written arguments.
- revolutionary
- glorious
- bringing out for the world
- achieved
- Why did CON ignore my logical syllogism?
- Why did CON ignore the correct definitions and the correctly interpreted resolution?
- The most important aspect to analyse is the ability to have a regulated discussion -- in other words, the ability to write, read and analyse written arguments.
- The most important aspect to analyze is the public opinion of which website has/had the better ability to have a regulated discussion, in other words, how well people write, read and analyze written arguments within the two websites in the time periods given.
Already proved why this is based on a false assumption that the resolution clearly forbids. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many millions of trillions users and debates DDO has. Not only could you never read or communicate with that many people, but you also cannot effectively moderate and control that amount of people.
The fact that people in the past preferred DDO has nothing to do with how good the website is.I am not comparing "is" to "was". I am comparing "is" to "is".
The popularity of DDO was a result of it not having to compete with Dart.
It's not only the aesthetics of DDO that have inherent flaws. Bugs on DDO can potentially ruin the experience of newcomers, and the structure of DDO is so unintuitive that new users literally have to struggle before they figure things out (I included, despite having great technical competence). I don't see why these are minor points.
The ability to make well-written, well-sourced and well-structured debates without annoying bugs definitely makes Dart a superior debating website to DDO.
TIMELESSNESS
a better site according to the internet users.
With MUCH more competition in DDO's "was", people might as well find variations and generally more fun in arguing as there are more debates as well as more kinds of debates.
DDO is the better website for the people to have a regulated discussion, which is the main criteria of how good it is
Overall, DDO is the website is more productive and brought more people of more happiness.
How good a thing is not anything to be measured in objective standard, as it is based on personal experiences
what matters is the experience of the site, not how well the webpages work alone
- more attractive, favourable, or commendable
- more advantageous or effective
- improved in accuracy or performance
- PRO wins instantly because of a redefinition of the word "DDO" to mean something that is not a debating website
- Alternatively, redefining words could be seen as unacceptable
- If so, then CON's case is rendered invalid because it relies on redefining the scholastic definition of "better" provided by PRO in R1.
- Either way, CON's case is seriously damaged due to his admission in R1 and later hypocrisy.
- Dart is better than DDO because it
- Is a better website
- Is a better debating website
- Has no bugs, and it works more effectively and accurately
- Looks better and has a better structure and is, therefore, more attractive and favourable
- Is more effective, advantageous and accurate with holding an organized debate
- CON's argument doesn't debunk PRO's argument.
- CON ignores PRO's case and instead builds his own case
- His arguments don't disprove that PRO's evidence is invalid
- PRO has provided a logical syllogism proving that Dart is a better debating website than DDO
- CON has failed to deny the validity of this syllogism
- CON has thus failed in debunking my evidence
- AS PRO, I AM THE VICTOR IF I HAVE A VALID CASE.
- CON having a valid case doesn't matter as long as PRO has a valid case.
- CON loses unless he debunks PRO's evidence
- more attractive, favourable, or commendable
- more advantageous or effective
- improved in accuracy or performance
- More people chose DDO over DART, and the reason for that is since they are attracted to websites, it is more attractive, favourable, or commendable to them. Don't ask me why, it is just what it is, hundreds vs hundreds of thousands of users.
- A debating website would be measured in the amount of information being produced(Quantity) and exchanged as well as the diversity within it(Quality). DDO trumps over DART as it has more users to participate, more debates and more forum topics, and it has exclusive things such as weekly stupid shows and mock religions(Thanks, Imabench), as well as just orthodox things such as SUCCESSFULLY RAN GAUNTLETS. With how many debates there are in DDO, It is almost a guarantee that there are more quality discussions on DDO, which makes it better.
- Since the site was more advantageous and effective in producing information than DART now, DDO wins for this tip. Pro's comparisons on merely how attractive the site looks is the same as comparing just the piece of land of a country to just another piece of land of another country, while ignoring the humanist impact of the people, and declare which country is superior just by how good the soil of a nation is or how scenic the tall peaks are. If so, then I will declare India a better nation than Japan because the soils are more fertile and the environment more diverse[2], while ignoring that Japanese people are smarter and their technology overall more advanced and the GDP more productive. Yes, just comparing webpage aesthetics doesn't make it a better debating website, as an uglier website(DDO) has driven out more productivity.
- DDO has a better performance, and that is to have more people bringing out more productive discussions. It is better than DART at this state, at least.
The improved version of a product is of course better than the original product. This logic is undeniable. Denying this would be equivalent to denying that modern cars are better than the original cars.
- I could define DART as a projectile.
- "Darts" cannot sustain argumentative discussions, but "DDO", an online game with chats, can
- Thus, "DDO" is a better debating website
- DDO is better at producing a superior quantity of quality information
- As a result, this quality alone ensures that DDO is better according to the original definition of "better".
- DArt is only effective at reducing bugs and making better graphics, but its determining factor, the flow of ideas, is not superior at all. A car with decorations and a small reliable engine isn't better than a professional racecar. Try comparing VW Golf to Porsche 962. The latter is superior in performance, which my opponent deems to be crucial to a car's quality in R2.
- Overall, I have proven DDO was a better debating website than DART.
This was a curious debate which began with a non-combative topic, the which I normally consider to be the Resolution, but in this case, it merely pits one debate site against another without the Instigator [Pro] taking an obvious position by the topic statement. It is clarified by the Description that Pro is taking the DArt position as the better debate website; however, the Description does set-up a potential troublesome theme by separating a timeline of the two websites. The timeline issue is easily resolved however, considering that the argument pro/con need not conform to a timeline to be a valid comparison. One site is better than another site regardless of the time misalignment.
Argument: Pro's BoP that DArt is the better debate website stands on its own merit considering the current conditions of DArt as opposed to the best that DDO ever was. Con argues the point that DDO is a defunct website, which, when accessed to see for one's self [it is a legitimate sourcing search a voter should conduct], one finds the DDO website is, in fact, defunct, and is even suggested that the URL is up for sale. Therefore, Con argues for the remainder of the debate rounds that the comparison is is/was between the websites is an illegitimate argument. While it is true that a voter cannot now see the DDO website as it was, Pro spends enough argument discussing its features, without sufficient rebuttal from Con to overwhelm the Pro arguments, that there is little left for Pro to argue. Con abandons the is/was argument to compare DArt to Debate.org, which is known to be DDO risen from ashes, but Con cannot overcome the distinction that the Debate.org website is not the DDO website. Con even cites the Debate.org URL, and not DDO. Failure to address argument within the confines of the Resolution is not sufficient to win the Argument. Argument to Pro
Sources. Pro's sources are relevant to the Resolution and fully support it. Con has few source references, and the one source most approaching supprt of an argument fails to address the website defined by Resolution. Sourcing to Pro.
Even though these elements are not required voting criteria in a winner selection debate, they are valid supports to conclude who did win the debate: The win goes to Pro.
Almost ending. Vote?
Thank you for voting.
Argument 3 incoming in 1 day.
I wish you good luck.
This is the first time we ever debate, I hope this will be interesting.
I could have that debate also if you want.
DDO has other meanings, one is dungeons and dragons online game.