Instigator / Pro
1
1760
rating
92
debates
77.17%
won
Topic
#3025
Dart vs DDO
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
0
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
BoP is shared.
Resolution: Dart is a better debating website than DDO was.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you, Intelligence_06, for accepting this debate. I wish you good luck.
FRAMEWORK
- 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
Important note: users of a site are NOT part of a website, no more than I am a part of Google.
- 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
From these definitions, we can clearly understand the exact meaning of the resolution
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the interpreted resolution: Dart as a website is more attractive and more effective at hosting online debate than DDO was in the past.
Since the BoP is shared, I have a duty to provide evidence supporting this claim, while CON has a duty to provide evidence disproving this claim. Failing to provide adequate evidence will lead to the other party winning the debate. If both parties provide evidence, we will discuss the validity and impact of each argument and let the voters decide which debater made a better case for their respective websites. Having finished the framework and ground rules for our debate, I will now move on.
DART IS A BETTER WEBSITE
Dart is a better website overall than DDO was. Denying this fact would be to claim that the planes of today aren't superior to the plane of the Wright brothers. I am fairly certain that CON doesn't dare to challenge this statement. However, it still doesn't hurt to add objective evidence to support the statement.
Aesthetics
To start off, there can be no doubt that Dart is a more well-organized website with a cleaner structure and a more pleasant colour palette. On DDO, there is chaos on the main page. Inherently in the code of the site lies the problem of links. DDO uses multiple sizes, colours and frames to make the different types of links and text distinguishable. Unfortunately, this leads to the site looking chaotic and unaligned. On Dart, not only is the colour palette more pleasing to the eye but much of the chaotic and unaligned text present on DDO has been replaced with graphical elements like buttons and icons. This making it easier and faster to distinguish what the different links lead to, as well as improving the aesthetic look of Dart as compared to DDO.
I know aesthetics are kind of subjective, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there exist entire sciences dedicated to colour palettes and website design. These can be used to create websites that are objectively more pleasant than others. If you want further evidence for aesthetics being mostly objective, check out this website, which looks objectively awfully. If PRO gets my point about aesthetics being somewhat objective, he has essentially conceded that Dart's modern and better-looking aesthetics is an OBJECTIVE advantage of Dart over DDO.
Structure
Dart has a better structure than DDO has or ever had. The most important change is the removal of the ever-present topic-select menu that took up the left part of the screen. The creator of Dart also reformed the menu at the top of the website by making it smaller and less dominant, while also removing the unnecessary pop-up menus for every button except the profile picture. Everything from the informative front page to the screen being occupied by only one thing at a time improves the structure of Dart as compared to DDO. All in all, there can be no doubt that this site has both a better looking and a more well-thought-out structure than DDO had in the past. This contributes to Dart being way more pleasant to the eye and way less stressful and confusing for users.
The impact of these two arguments is that Dart is a better webpage because its design is objectively more effective, commendable and attractive than the design of DDO.
The natural follow-up question is whether or not Dart is a better DEBATING website than DDO was.
DART IS A BETTER DEBATING WEBSITE
The primary purpose of a debating website is to provide the structure and platform for online discourse. There can certainly be multiple ways to make a debating website, but DDO and Dart use the exact same principle. DDO was obviously the predecessor of Dart, so this only makes sense. We all ought to praise DDO for being the legend that it is, and for inspiring those that made Dart a reality. However, I will now point out multiple advantages of how Dart handles debates compared to how DDO does.
Limits
While DDO only allows a maximum of 10.000 characters, Dart offers a whopping three times as much. This allows for more in-depth debates than are possible on DDO. 30.000 character debates have occurred here on Dart multiple times. Not surprisingly, we also find that debates with 12,15 and 20 thousand characters occur very frequently on Dart. This kind of debates would not be possible on DDO. Another advantage of Dart is the accurate character counter. On DDO the character count is very vague. It includes things such as spacing and line breaks as characters. This both disincentiveses adequate structure in written arguments and further limits the character count if you decide to have a decent structure. Even more infuriating is the fact that the character count is not always reliable, as inaccuracies often occur. Dart solves all of these problems by having a more accurate and more forgiving character count. Dart even has a feature that allows arguments to supersede the character limit by some amount. This might often get in handy, especially if you miscalculated the size of your argument.
Options
Dart has an objectively better text engine. It allows for emojis first and foremost, but also quotation highlights and compressed links. If you are to create a well-sourced argument with intuitive sourcing and quotation then only Dart can provide you with these options. On DDO you had to use plain black links and use numbering to connect a source and the quote. On Dart, you can simply put a quote in a highlighted area and add a compressed link with the name of your source. Let me show you.
DDO has so many glitches it's literally unusable for proper debating or forum interaction. [RationalMadman]
These bugs have ruined the website to the point where it has become unusable. But of course, we are talking about DDO in the past, before these bugs. Coming back on track, I have to mention a crucial advantage of Dart. You can literally copy and paste a link to any and all comments, arguments or forum post on this website. This makes it easy to cite other members of the site. I have now briefly explained why Dart has a better and more flexible text engine than DDO ever had.
The impact of these arguments is that Dart allows for more flexibility, structure and better sourcing. I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dart is more effective, advantageous, favourable and accurate with regards to actual debating. The implication of this is that Dart is, in fact, a better debating website than DDO was.
OF COURSE DART IS BETTER
As you should know, Dart is the successor to DDO. Debate.art is basically the update DDO always needed. This site is up-to-date, a fact which shines through in the superior design and structure. This site looks better, has a better menu system and the text engine supports everything DDO lacked. Dart learned from every mistake DDO made, and thus managed to avoid those mistakes. Every good thing DDO made was improved upon and put into Dart. Dart is, in every way, an improved version of DDO.
I have created a 100% logical syllogism that proves my case beyond any reasonable doubt.
P1: Dart is an improved version of DDO
P2: If B is an improved version of A, then B is better than A was, and not vice-versa
C: Dart is better than DDO was, and not vice-versa
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 first cars were. CON is forced to argue, contrary to logic, that DDO is better than the improved version of itself. Denying logic is simply unfeasible.
CONCLUSION
Since THE WEBPAGE Dart excels in every thinkable way, there is nothing to suggest that the resolution isn't true, and a lot of evidence proves that the resolution is true.
Voters, you can't reasonably vote PRO if he chooses to make an appeal to quantum mechanics or another absurd and completely irrelevant factor. Please reward the evidence and logic supporting my side rather than any dirty trick PRO might try to pull off. As you are fair people, I am confident you will vote based on reasonable arguments.
The resolution has been proven true based on all the applicable definitions!
VOTE PRO!
Con
#2
I rarely fill up the 10000 limit anyways, but just for your understanding, I immediately got devastated because my original plans of this debate is to storm the topic by semantical kritiks by arguing that DDO could stand for other things that aren't debate websites. However, I am Con, meaning I have to prove that DART is NOT better than DDO as a debating website. The plan above is literally against my supposed stand.
Either way, I will define what DDO and DART is to prevent my opponent from using dirty tricks on me.
DDO: Debate.org
DART: DebateArt.com
Pro has failed to define what DDO and DArt is, but I figured that he would probably have meant these things at the end of the day. No need to thank me.
"I am not a part of Google" --Benjamin
That is false, or is just a bad analogy. A website, especially one for civil discussions and occasionally uncivil rants, is just a vehicle for thoughts. A vehicle for thoughts is just a medium for ideas(which is just another way of conveying the same idea...get it?), and a vehicle, could be literally be described as a vehicles with 4 wheels attached to its body.
You could discuss how fast a car goes or how comfortable its leather seats are, but ultimately, how good a car is should be compared in the scale of how much good it has done for society. Scientific advancements is one thing to be considered.
Notice the article used before the term "DDO" is "Was", and not "is", so it is okay for Con to use DART's now(used "IS") to compare to DDO's prime(was).
Back to the Car analogy, if "was" is to be compared with "is", then Mclaren F1 is arguably more revolutionary in scientific advancement than say, the Mclaren Speedtail. Obviously, the latter is faster in overall speed and is probably more comfortable, but the reason for it is because it is produced over 20 years later. Comparing the former's Was to the latter's Is, the former wins out as it brings out more for the world. What is more insulting is that the latter is the several-gen successor of the former, yet it still didn't bring as much as its ancestor.
Same for DDO. Before its death, it is the sole hub for organized civil opinionated discussions. It is only after its death that DART picked up its bone ashes and reincarnated itself. The fact it has less activity than DDO would mean that it has done less for humanity itself.
We must admit DDO is revolutionary as a site, just as Bugatti Veyron or Mclaren F1 was as a car. It has 116,495 topics according to my statistics in September 2020. DDO is also a site with thousands of users in total. Compared to DART? DART has only 458 debaters total in April 2021 and only over 6000 topics ever. It is clear that up to the activity level, i.e. what the website has done towards the world, DDO trumps over DART.
I mean, I am not controlled by Google so I am not a part of Google, but all the codes I have written as a google employee(suppose I am) would be a part of Google. Just because the employee is not directly owned by the company doesn't mean the human factor must be ruled out altogether. In fact, everything the DDO users have contributed within till its prime is still a part of the site, such as the Church of NAC. There is a mock religion in the site of 100,000+ debaters. What do we have here to match even 1/10 of that?
In conclusion here, what people have done for Google is a part of Google. What people have done for DDO is a part of DDO. People have done more for DDO than DART and DDO has done more for people than DART. It is true that when you factor the contribution in, DDO wins with ease and a bat on its hand clean.
I admit that DDO is not as visually appealing compared to DART, and maybe a little buggy. However, does DART have 11 pages of competent debaters that can win debates? No. Does DART have a mock religion with popes? Nope. Does DART have quickfire tournaments? Nah. Does DART have successfully-ran gauntlets? Uh-oh. Does DART have a weekly show and a movie? Nein. It is without a doubt that DDO has achieved all of these with ease.
Are we comparing the starting position of DDO vs DART? If so, then feel free to consider your dad's company to Google, because it started in a garage. We now use Google to search everything, and what does your dad have against that? It is more absurd that Pro's argument is about that right now, DART's graphics are superior, when we are comparing "is" to "was" in reality. Might as well say that the Byzantine empire was less glorious than the present-day Turkey because the latter is more technologically advance, when in fact, Justinian has more power than Erdogan, and the old Byzantine empire ruled more land than modern-day Turkey. By contribution, Byzantine empire has contributed more.
For a website marked by organized discussions, it doesn't matter if it looks good or not, it rather matters if users can flow in it and talk in it or not, because after all, it is not an infographic-making website, it is made to serve the purpose of letting the people talk their ideas out loud on webpages. DDO has done this better than DART, especially since the resolution ensured me to compared "was" to "is".
Conclusions
- 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.
All sources are being embedded into the respective parts. Go scroll up if confused. Thank you for reading.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you Intelligence_06.
FRAMEWORK
CON neither rebutted my definitions nor my resolution. This framework has thus been accepted. Recall the three important notes:
- 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.
Here is the interpreted resolution: Dart as a website is more attractive and more effective at hosting online debate than DDO was in the past.
BoP
As PRO, I win if I provide evidence supporting the resolution. Having already done that in round 1, and not having my evidence disputed or rebutted, CON has not actually fulfilled his BoP. Had the debate ended PRO would already be the victor of this debate, having provided evidence that CON did not rebut. If CON does not rebut the evidence I provided in R1 then he loses due to PRO having an uncontested argument.
KRITIKING CON'S APPROACH
1. Choice of words
CON has chosen a strategy of using cherry-picked vocabulary while ignoring the actual wording of the resolution. He uses words like
- revolutionary
- glorious
- bringing out for the world
- achieved
CON uses as an argument that DDO is more "some adjective" than Dart. This is a moving-the-goalpost fallacy. The wording of the title uses the word "better", which can only refer to quality, aka the definitions provided in my R1 framework. CON proving that DDO was more glorious than Dart has nothing to do with the actual resolution.
In short, CON has proven that DDO was more "glorious" than Dart is. However, he didn't at all disprove that Dart is a better debating website than DDO.
2. Incorrect usage of analogies
CON stated: "You could discuss how fast a car goes or how comfortable its leather seats are, but ultimately, how good a car is should be compared in the scale of how much good it has done for society." The problem here is that CON ignored the words "better, debating, and website" in the resolution. CON appeals to something as vague as "good done for society", while completely ignoring the question at hand. The correct analogy would be to say that a modern car is a BETTER VEHICLE than cars in the past. How good a car depends on its feats, its engine, its speed, its aesthetics and so forth Its quality does not depend on how popular or glorious it was, nor the number of passengers. CON's analogy literally supports the resolution when you think about it logically. Of course a modern car is a better car than cars were in the past.
CON also compares two nations, Turkey today and the Byzantine Empire from the past. He shows us that it doesn't matter how much better technology Turkey has, the Byzantines still were more glorious. While I find the analogy good, it has zero impact on our debate. Not only does his comparison rely on the arbitrary word "glorious", but the comparison fails in many ways. Not only is a nation completely different from a website, but there is no correct way to measure its "better-ness".
CON's analogy that his code is a part of Google also fails miserably. Again, CON fails to understand the crucial word: "Website". Nothing that is on the web is a part of a website. CON having helped create the Google pages simply is not a part of a webpage. At best, his code is a part of a website. You cannot claim that the entire company Google is a part of the Google website, nor can you say that the company Ford is a part of the vehicle Ford. One simply cannot say that every user on DDO is a part of the website DDO. Therefore, DDO having more users doesn't matter. What matters is the wording of the resolution: "better debating website".
All of CON's analogies fail to support his case, and they definitely do not disprove the arguments I presented in round 1.
REBUTTALS
I will now attack CON's argument themselves, instead of proving their irrelevance.
"What people have done for DDO is a part of DDO"
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. As if this wasn't bad enough, having more debaters doesn't ensure quality debating. Compare any debate presented on Dart to a similar time-intense debate on DDO, and you find that Darts superior text engine, effectiveness, better structure and fewer bugs culminate in arguments that are superior in every way to those possible on DDO. 11 pages of good debaters don't make the experience better for the average user. Mock religions are neither respectful nor do they contribute positively to anything. Quickfire debates, apart from also being possible on Dart, are nothing compared to the live debates this site has to offer.
The "it's more popular" argument is not a credible argument for DDO being better than Dart. If we are to include the community, then the Dart community is smaller but better. Not only do we have more than adequate moderation service, but we also can enjoy forums without billions of people spamming posts. We don't have anyone with so little respect and regard for others like Backwardseden, which means that we don't have to worry about trolls and toxic people. From the perspective of us the debaters and voters, the Dart community is clearly superior in quality to that of former DDO. The fact that people in the past preferred DDO has nothing to do with how good the website is.
"It is more absurd that Pro's argument is about that right now, DART's graphics are superior, when we are comparing "is" to "was"
I am not comparing "is" to "was". I am comparing "is" to "is". Go check out the DDO website if you so wish: https://www.debate.org/. It still looks awful and is completely useless due to the bugs. CON is the one that abuses the time gap. The reason why DDO is more popular is exactly that there is such a time gap. The popularity of DDO was a result of it not having to compete with Dart. Seeing how Dart is better than DDO in almost every way imaginable, there is no reason to deny this. Yes, there are many good reasons for Dart being better than DDO, including the fact that DDO did a lot of mistakes Dart learned from. But this doesn't disprove the fact that Dart is indeed a better debating website than DDO. I find it hypocritical that CON, who apparently dislikes the very premise of this debate, is the one that abuses the time discrepancy.
For a website marked by organized discussions, it doesn't matter if it looks good or not
Explain to me why this is not the case? Is there any difference between a debating website or another website. Does debating websites have some magical shield protecting them from being judged by their outlook. I don't think so. Both the first impression and the general experience of any website is shaped by first and foremost graphics, structure and efficiency. 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.
I have defended my argument that Dart is a better website.
"it is made to serve the purpose of letting the people talk their ideas out loud on web pages"
Even if CON could adequately defeat my first argument (which literally would be to deny aesthetic science), CON still did not rebut the argument regarding the potential to debate. I showed why Dart is not only a superior website but also a superior DEBATING website. The ability to make well-written, well-sourced and well-structured debates without annoying bugs definitely makes Dart a superior debating website to DDO. Not only that, but Dart has even more advantages than I could mention last round. DDO forces PRO to write his first argument before CON can accept. This either increases contender advantage or decreases PRO's argument-rounds to a maximum of 4. Dart on the other hand allows for both a short and long description, which makes it way easier for PRO. People like Undefeatable would not be able to instigate and win as often on DDO, because the system in place gives an even larger unfair advantage to the contender.
I have defended my argument that Dart is a better debating platform. I add these newly mentioned advantages on top of the pile of evidence supporting my argument.
TIMELESSNESS
DDO has a time-specific aesthetic. The site will only "look good" until someone makes a better-looking website. But since you cannot supersede perfection, there can be serious doubt that any site will ever make Dart look ugly in comparison. You see, modern website creators make use of science to find fitting colour palettes. It is virtually impossible to pick a colour palette that fits together better than the colours of Dart; because these colours are scientifically proven to be the perfect combination. At best, other websites might use equally perfect colours. Thus, Dart is not time-dated as much as DDO is. Dart very much touches perfection in its design, which DDO was far from ever achieving.
Dart literally has the potential for timelessness, which DDO never came close to having. I add this as my fourth argument.
QUESTIONS:
- Why did CON ignore my logical syllogism?
- Why did CON ignore the correct definitions and the correctly interpreted resolution?
If CON does not disprove my case then he has lost! CON has to defeat my case by debunking my arguments and disproving my syllogism. It doesn't do it to merely point out some ways in which DDO was superior to Dart. He must disprove my case as I am PRO. As things stand, Dart is objectively better in every way described by me. CON's only point is that Dart was more popular and thus had a bigger community. If that argument is even valid it still in no way outweighs my case with lots of evidence and four arguments.
CONCLUSION
The resolution still is proven true. CON did not disprove the resolution, he simply ignored my case to use his personal reflections (read: subjective and invalid evidence). In contrast, my argument is based on the resolution of this debate and the applicable definitions provided by Merriam-Webster dictionary. CON's semantics and rhetoric should not outweigh my logical syllogism and massive evidence.
Remember: as PRO, I do not need to rebut CON's case to win, I simply need to support my own case - which is what I have done.
I happily await CON's argument.
Con
#4
Sorry for responding so late. I am tired right now so don't laugh at me for posting such a lazy round.
The Customer is Always Right
How "good" a thing is not anything to be measured in objective standard, as it is based on personal experiences. For example, the points that my opponent is currently pushing for:
- 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.
Is merely regarding how well people use it in their lives, in other words,
- 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.
In fact, it is impossible to measure something objectively when using a site as what matters is the experience of the site, not how well the webpages work alone. In reality, a person would prefer a street-corner diner/cafe that feeds them what they considers to be delicacy instead of a fancy restaurant that feeds them what they consider absolute garbage. If a site that looks like garbage(which is not the case if you use "was" on the issue of DDO, as you can just use the prime time of DDO, which was a time where hundreds of active debaters have had a time much more productive and much more fun than what we have here) yet it is better for the people, then the people, which is the vehicle of the mind, the foundation of everything we consider reason, would consider this site better. I doubt that my opponent alone(which, by the way, I have not seen him debating anywhere in DDO in its prime, so I highly doubt the quality of his reasonings regarding DDO) is enough to represent the entire group of debaters that was active during its prime.
There is a reason why some drawings that looked ever so real sold for $100 and a taped banana was sold for $100,000. The interests of the people. People seems to be much more interested in DDO than in DART.
Evidently(scroll up to my R1 argument), DDO was MUCH MORE productive when it comes to content(which, unlike users themselves which do have lives outside their time on a debating website, ARE made up of codes that are to be considered to be a part of the website, hence the content are a part of DDO or DART). Shorten the amount of forum topics created to the present time period, and DDO would have over 8000 topics PER YEAR(if we consider 14 years), whereas we only have about 6000 topics in about 2.5 years. It is definitely a sign that our productivity on the present site is nowhere near DDO's contributions if their rate was over 3 time ours. While spam may be a thing, but it shouldn't be true that 2/3 of all the forum posts created are just meaningless spams.
DDO also has successfully-ran gauntlets as well as weekly shows and even a movie. DART has nothing to go against that. Dropped.
Conclusions
Overall, DDO is the website is more productive and brought more people of more happiness. It is simple: More people decided to use DDO and more ideas was created there. Since how "good" a website is is subjective from the people, it would as well mean that DDO, the more productive and the more popular and the one which has more ideas and has overall brought more people happiness with more things the people has created, is a better site according to the internet users.
No matter how "new" and "fancy" DART is, we must face the fact that the productivity of ideas in this site still falls short to DDO's productivity of ideas. If DDO is MUCH more efficient than DART in its purpose--producing and discuss ideas, when in the intended timeframe, it would mean that DDO is the better website for the people to have a regulated discussion, which is the main criteria of how good it is. 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.
Face it, DDO is the place that the majority people would prefer to have organized discussions. It is therefore, better.
Rebuttals
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.
Say this to Instagram and Facebook and tell me that why they are worse than a basically unknown platform with pages with somewhat quality.
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".
That is the problem. You are supposed to compare "is" to "was". Saying DDO "IS" worse is irrelevant to the resolution.
The popularity of DDO was a result of it not having to compete with Dart.
Russia is better than the Soviet Union because Soviet Union's success is a result of it not having to compete with Russia. Now say that with me. Sound absurd?
DART is literally meant to be an alternative of DDO after DDO died. There is no means of competition. Also, DDO was more popular, right? If it is more productive to the people compared to DART, then it would literally mean that people find this place better for organized discussions in the past, which would mean that it is better.
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.
That doesn't stop DDO from being popular in its prime. DDO looks like this because developers left a bug at an update. When you compare "was" to "is", the time before that bug was even implemented is still in the "was", which means that I am allowed to use it.
I say it again: The people. Overall the people found DDO to be more productive for organized discussion in the past, more than we do now and here. It is the reason why DDO's forums are over 3 times as productive as ours, as well as people contributed all kinds of different things to that place, including mock religions and even weekly shows.
The ability to make well-written, well-sourced and well-structured debates without annoying bugs definitely makes Dart a superior debating website to DDO.
But more people chose DDO. It doesn't matter how good it is objectively because eventually whose choice that matters is the users'.
TIMELESSNESS
DART is not yet timeless. In fact, it hasn't even quite reached DDO's position yet. Unless you can see the future and see that DART is in fact timeless, this argument holds no basis, especially since it has appealed to a smaller group than DDO's former group.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you, CON.
DEFENCE
Facebook and Instagram are meant to be social media, not debating websites. Their purpose isn't to provide structured debates like Dart and DDO. Yet if CON argues that popularity is more important than the actual feats of the debating engine, then he must assert that Facebook and Reddit are better debating websites than DDO and Dart.
CON critiques me for comparing "is" to "is". Yet he also critiqued me for comparing "was" to "is". He clearly doesn't have any solid arguments, they are merely impulsive. He also claims that it is unfair of me to compare two websites that never got to compete, yet that is the entire premise of this debate. I claim that if Dart existed on the same time as DDO, nobody would use DDO as Dart is a much better debating website in every regard.
REBUTTALS
a better site according to the internet users.
OBJECTION: CON is pulling a non-sequitur. Popularity and enjoyment are not the same. How does CON dare to claim that DDO users enjoyed the site more when all evidence points towards Dart being more enjoyable? He is making an unreasonable claim with no evidence.
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.
OBJECTION: The users of a site are not a part of the website. Users are not made of code. CON is only allowed, through extensive semantics, to use as an argument that more text exist's on DDO for potential users to read. CON can't simply attribute the brilliant people that used DDO to that website; that would be as absurd as saying that "X" aeroplane is better than "Y" aeroplane because the pilot of "X" is better than the pilot of "Y". CON's argument fails.
DDO is the better website for the people to have a regulated discussion, which is the main criteria of how good it is
OBJECTION: Effective means successful in the result that you want. The thing you want in a debating website is not to have as many people arguing as possible, lest Facebook, Reddit and the youtube comment section are better debating websites than Dart and DDO alike due to their superior popularity and ability to create discussion. No! The result one wants is the ability to host a debate where both sides can most clearly write their arguments and most easily respond to their opponent's arguments -- as well as have good systems in place to ensure nothing prevents this discussion from happening (aka, the absence of bugs, regulations to prevent other from joining, time limitations and so forth). In R1, I clearly proved that Dart is more effective due to it being a direct improvement of the effectiveness of DDO.
Overall, DDO is the website is more productive and brought more people of more happiness.
Popularity is not the same as quality, lest CON is willing to argue that Facebook and Reddit are better debating websites than DDO and Dart. Is CON willing to claim that Playstation 2 was a better gaming console than Playstation 4, merely because PlayStation 2 was more popular [consoles/sales]? Once again, no sane human would argue that an improved version of a product is worse than the original version. Furthermore, CON has not provided evidence that the people of DDO were happier than the users of Dart are. Even if you simply compare the numbers, Dart has only a few active users in 2.5 years yet we are happy enough that Dart is 1/3 as productive as DDO was in 14 years with hundreds of active users at some point. This signalises at the very least that Dart users through time are more productive than DDO users were.
CRITIQUE OF CON'S APPROACH
CON can't merely give his interpretation of what the resolution means. CON must debunk the argument PRO chooses to make. Elsewise, he loses.
Intelligence-06 agrees to the highlighted statement above
CON admitted in his R1 that his original plan was to "storm the topic by semantical critics by arguing that DDO could stand for other things that aren't debate websites". CON thinks that the PRO position can use absurd arguments to win as long as some interpretation of the resolution is proven correct. Intelligence_06 clearly agrees that the CON side cannot use his own interpretation of what the debate is about, he must debunk PRO's interpretation. He agrees that CON has to defeat PRO's logic to win; not merely debunk some other interpretation of the resolution that he chooses.
CON is guilty of hypocrisy
How good a thing is not anything to be measured in objective standard, as it is based on personal experiences
This is a textbook example of redefining the meaning of the words used in the resolution. I provided scholastic definitions of "better" in R1, and CON clearly ignores them in a moving-the-goalpost fallacy. I ask voters to judge CON by his own standard. He has admitted that he had malicious intent to destroy a debate and win by absurd semantics as the PRO side. Realising that his position was CON, he now claims that CON can win by "correcting" PRO's interpretation of the topic.
Voters, please take CON's blatant hypocrisy into consideration.
Proof that my definitions are gonna be used
To ensure that CON has no get-out-of-jail-free card, I present the following argument:
P1: DDO stands for Dungeons and Dragons Online
P2: Dungeons and Dragons Online isn't a debating website, while Debateart is
C: Dart is a better debating website than DDO.
This syllogism proves that Dart is better than DDO, and this is a valid way for PRO to win as per CON's admission. The only way this argument isn't valid, and thus the only way I don't win instantly, is that the first definition of a word is the one to be used. As a result, I either win instantly, or we are going to use the first definitions of the word "better".
CON's strategy exposed and his arguments debunked
I have proved using crystal clear logic that Dart is better than DDO. Rather than rebutting, PRO claims that DDO was "more glorious" and "more popular". Yet none of these traits of DDO disproves that Dart is an objectively bettsite. Even if a house has fewer weber inhabitants than ant-hives, it is still a better building due to superior architecture, ventilation, electricity, doors, windows and so forth. Similarly, DDO having more users or posts doesn't disprove my argument that Dart is objectively better as a website.
CON claims that since the code of a website is a part of the website, the users are also a part of it. Yet that is utterly misleading. Is the passengers of a taxi a part of the car? No of course not. A taxi with passengers isn't a better car than an improved version of the said car model. Popularity does not matter when comparing quality.
what matters is the experience of the site, not how well the webpages work alone
CON is once again making a factually incorrect claim. When comparing two products we of course use a controlled experiment where both products can shine. The experience of the users is influenced by their experience outside of said web pages, as well as the chronology of their experience. Going off of subjective experience rather than objective analysis is bound to create absurd conclusions. Direct improvements of previous products are logically speaking better. But if you take experience into consideration you can get opposite results, such as the PS2 being a better gaming console than the PS4 if we are going off of CON's standard. These absurd results are contradicting the very nature and usefulness of every analysis. CON is claiming that objective analysis is impossible, which is a direct attempt at undermining the validity of any analysis, including his own.
CON's standards fail due to undermining the validity of standards.
ARGUMENT DEFENDED
CON's way to define "good" is not backed up by any source or evidence -- and I have proved logically why my definitions are the valid ones. Furthermore, I provided a scholastic definition of "better" in R1, and this definition is the correct one, not CON's attempt at moving the goalpost. Here are the definitions.
- more attractive, favourable, or commendable
- more advantageous or effective
- improved in accuracy or performance
These are official definitions of the word better.
If I prove that Dart fits ANY of these definitions when compared to DDO, I win because I am PRO. Denying this would be a case of extreme hypocrisy and bad conduct by CON, who previously asserted that PRO could win by simply cherry-picking absurd interpretations of the resolution. This point stands. My only BoP is to prove how Dart fits one of the definitions.
As per my unrebutted R1 logic:
"""
Here is the interpreted resolution: Dart as a website is more attractive and more effective at hosting online debate than DDO was in the past.
...
I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dart is more effective, advantageous, favourable and accurate with regards to actual debating.
The implication of this is that Dart is, in fact, a better debating website than DDO was.
...
P1: Dart is an improved version of DDO
P2: If B is an improved version of A, then B is better than A was, and not vice-versa
C: Dart is better than DDO was, and not vice-versa
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. CON is forced to argue, contrary to logic, that DDO is better than the improved version of itself. Denying logic is simply unfeasible.
...
...
Since THE WEBPAGE Dart excels in every thinkable way, there is nothing to suggest that the resolution isn't true, and a lot of evidence proves that the resolution is true.
"""
SUMMARY
- 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
P1: CON loses unless he debunks PRO's evidence, [[[based on PRO's interpretation of choice, as long as it is valid]]]
P2: CON has not debunked my evidence, and especially not my logical syllogism
C: CON has lost.
CONCLUSION
The resolution is true. Dart is indeed a better website in terms of quality, which I have proven logically as well as analytical. CON never rebutted my crystal clear R1 evidence.
Voting CON would be equivalent to rewarding open hypocrisy as well as agreeing that the CON side can redefine definitions without valid source and while ignoring PRO's scholastic definitions. I hope every voter will take these important points into consideration, and hopefully will vote according to principles for fairness.
Thank you, Intelligence_06, for training me in the art of Kritik war.
Con
#6
Defining
I could just define Dart as a thrown projectile since it is possible and my opponent agrees it to be possible[1]. Dart is not defined by Pro in any extent.
Since a thrown projectile cannot be a medium of idea exchange yet Dungeons and Dragons Online has chats, this would mean that "DDO" is technically the only one capable of holding "debates", which makes "DDO" a better debating website.
Original scholasticdefinition
Since Pro can just make new arguments in the final round, I can too.
- more attractive, favourable, or commendable
- more advantageous or effective
- improved in accuracy or performance
Take this for example:
- 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.
It is better at reducing bugs and making better graphics, but neither of these are determining factors of a DEBATING website. If we are comparing the two as just websites then Pro could win easily, but what are these? Debating websites. The fact DDO would have a superior quantity of quality discussions, would mean that it is better.
BoP
It is specified that the BoP is shared and not on Pro. Plus, if I make a better argument than Pro, it would mean that his case would be dismantled.
Conclusion
- 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.
[2]https://bettermeetsreality.com/where-is-the-most-fertile-soil-found-worldwide-by-country-by-biome/
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.