If Incorporating Cross Examination Is "Easy", DART should do it.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Full resolution: If the Cost of incorporating Cross Examination is negligible (i.e., it takes little effort, time, money, etc. to add in a Cross Examination Feature, perhaps similar to a real time chat, such as Edeb8's Cross Examination system as an example), then Debate Art should incorporate the Cross Examination System.
Which Cross Examination system will I be vouching for?
Edeb8's Cross examination system. If there are any flaws, con may ask if pro can address these flaws.
How will Cross Examination factor into debate?
The two may ask each other questions in a chat format for everyone to see, so that some parts of the arguments may be cleared up with some quick questions or phrasing. This will be useful in more complex debates such as Abortion to get over some arguments that may take many many iterations of back-and-forth to complete.
Formal definition of Cross Examination:
Cross-ex, short for cross-examination, is a period of time between speeches where opponents ask each other questions to clarify and better understand each other's case (and, if all goes well, an important concession for you to win the debate).
Ultimately, you can think of cross-ex as another speech, except instead of continuous talking, you actually engage with your opponent. During this time, you are given the opportunity to demonstrate confidence and credibility that will allow you to become a more persuasive speaker and help you win speaker points.
Source: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/cross-examination.html#:~:text=Cross%2Dex%2C%20short%20for%20cross,you%20to%20win%20the%20debate).
- You: Didn’t you testify that you saw me with my husband at the park on Saturday and that he did not hit me?
- Witness: Yes, that’s what I said.
- Witness: Yes, that’s what I said.
- You: And you said that you took the blue line bus to get to the park that day?
- Witness: Yes, that’s true.
- Witness: Yes, that’s true.
- You: Isn’t it true that the blue line bus does not run on weekends?
- Witness: Uh, yes – it only runs during the week.
- Witness: Uh, yes – it only runs during the week.
- You: No further questions Your Honor.
- Is incorporating cross examination useful in IRL debating and in quantities of circumstances? Possibly.
- Is incorporating CE(short for cross examination from now on) a good idea for DART? Probably not.
- Me(anc2006, who is with over 120 debates actually)
- Barney(Ragnar)
- Oromagi
- David
- Whiteflame
- Mall
That's a good idea, will do. I am actually working on a new version of a website with bunch of changes, so this one will get included as well. I will try to deliver everything in a couple of months but can't say for sure coz that's of work :/
Do you believe all debaters would be able to discuss sources, especially doubtful or dishonest ones, thoroughly with only three to five rounds and no cross examination questioning?
Do you agree that the Edeb8 Chat window makes arguments more concise and easier to quickly reply to short points that don't require an entire round to address?Do you agree that the ability to quickly clarify something for audience and debater could save time and enhance knowledge and discussion for the debate?Do you think the justice system should get rid of the Cross examination approach?Do you agree that fallacies may be reduced with cross examination, since they can be easily pointed out with a single chat session and resolved, instead of forcing to go back-and-forth three times with potentially no resolution?
- My Opponent has presented that RFA holds the opinion that China detains minorities, however, he did not explain how credible RFA is.
- Clarification inquiry(What does my opponent mean) is completely unneeded as all arguments are in text format and can be reviewed indefinitely.
- If the opposing argument is SO confusing that we would need to ask questions to understand it, don't. Just let the S&G point tilt on your behalf and possibly the 3 argument points. An example is R4 in this debate.
- Even if asking this question genuinely exploits your strength and/or the weaknesses of the opponent, all it does is to solidify what is already there. If anything new is being brought up as an answer to a question, that means the answerer has more to work with and the questioner is more likely at a disadvantage. If the questioner is purposefully asking expecting the other side to flop, that would be considerably risk-taking. If you are sure that the opponent will weaken themselves by answering due to an inevitable contradiction, that can be simply substituted by pointing it out next round with the opponent less alert. Essentially, not asking is the better choice.
Do you agree the various chat boxes and back-and-forth allows people to give reply to short points that don't need the entire round to address?
Conversation VS Debate
Honestly And Fairness
If we're arguing about, say, Generalization fallacy, which Con does seem to be committing here, we'd have to throw back and forth. We have to ask, why is it this way, what's the definition, how much do you think this contributes to the argument.
- Other media suffices, such as Youtube Live and Discord.
- The lack of frequency for live debates makes it absolutely unnecessary to implement it on DART as opposed to just hosting it on other media once in a while.
but I don't think Time is an issue here, given that I already stated in the premise it is "easy", adding in that *all* costs were negligible, including Time.
- Asking questions either amount to nothing or makes the other side more clarified. Neither is desirable to the questioner.
- The clarification can be easily substituted for just saying how flawed the pre-clarified arguments are.
- Even if asking questions are worth it, we can do it in the debating rounds.
- Inquiry textboxes can be used for argument extendations, making the separation unnecessary.
- The issues of CE can be fulfilled by asking in-rounds or the forums or edeb8, etc. There is no need to specifically implement a function here.
- that sounds like CE is technically already here. In this case, the topic is as absurd as saying "Bin Laden should die" in 2022.
- Just because implementation is easy does not mean it won't take long. CE will take long.
- Nobody needed CE and nobody asked for it and we have functioned well without it.
- Vote CON.
Conclusions
- Asking questions either amount to nothing or makes the other side more clarified. Neither is desirable to the questioner.
- The clarification can be easily substituted for just saying how flawed the pre-clarified arguments are.
- Even if asking questions are worth it, we can do it in the debating rounds.
- Inquiry textboxes can be used for argument extendations, making the separation unnecessary.
- The issues of CE can be fulfilled by asking in-rounds or the forums or edeb8, etc. There is no need to specifically implement a function here.
- that sounds like CE is technically already here. In this case, the topic is as absurd as saying "Bin Laden should die" in 2022.
- Just because implementation is easy does not mean it won't take long. CE will take long.
- Nobody needed CE and nobody asked for it and we have functioned well without it.
- Vote CON.
This is a very close one.
Pro's argument is that the goal of incorporating Cross-Examining should be to explore the levels of an opponent's points deeper in order to get to the truth and that honesty should be prioritized over the conventional parlor tricks normally used to win a debate. The example of how cross-examining is used in courts to highlight deceptiveness and inconsistencies is a great one that supports Pro's point. While Pro does make convincing statements concerning the use of CE and gives great examples that would be ideal for those striving for logical consistency, he fails to provide reasons for why we need CE and there is a lack of an explanation of why CE is even necessary. There's also a lack of sources or empirical evidence that would even suggest that the use of CE would be beneficial for a site like CE.
While Con may not be wrong, he is ignoring the first half of the Resolution. Con mentions that the active userbase on DART is currently very small and that adding CE runs the risk of pushing customers away. This is a compelling reason, but it makes a very bold claim that speaks with such certainty, but Con provides no evidence to suggest that this is even true. It's based only on personal feeling. Furthermore, just because Con admits he personally would stop using the site, how can he infer that others would do the same? This argument is sufficient enough on its own simply with the mention of the amount of people currently using the site and the risk that it would cause, but just because it's a good argument doesn't make it a valid rebuttal simply because it doesn't address the topic's first clause, "If incorporating CE is easy,"
The rest of Con's rebuttal explains that of all the people on DART, this is the first time anyone has requested the need for CE. This is a valid rebuttal because it demonstrates why CE is unnecessary. However, the rest of Con's argument goes on explaining why adding CE would be too difficult which completely misses the mark by failing to acknowledge the prompt.
Pro counters this by mentioning Con's lack of evidence, suggesting the potential that CE could have in the future and that it adds more diversity in terms of options for debating. Pro also mentions that Con's argument about time management is lacking evidence and points out that he is ignoring the title of the debate. The comparison between the judicial system and DART was a strong one, Pro calls out Con for dismissing this example by implying that he was using a False Equivalence fallacy without giving details to back this up. Pro accuses Con of using a Generalization fallacy and uses Con's own actions to attempt to prove the need for Cross-Examination, which was a really desperate tactic and inconsistent with Pro's own philosophy.
Round 3 is where Con presents his strongest case. He firsthand demonstrates at best how CE could even be counter-productive by illustrating that if Pro's goal is to discover the truth of an argument, CE runs the risk of only making the opponent's argument stronger. That it could possibly backfire. In this round, Con also picks a part the example used by Pro previously, by elaborating on the distinction between the judicial system and an internet debate forum through suggesting that using a form of arguing used by lawyers could be deconstructed on an informal setting like the forums. Con also points out that the forums already have everything that Pro could ever ask for.
Both opponents forfeited a round and Pro failed to meet the criteria for the Burden of Proof while Con struggled, but eventually pulled through.
In conclusion, Pro mentions great advantages of a CE system but fails to demonstrate the need for it. Remember, the word "should" in the title. DART "should" add CE. The main question remains unanswered, why "should" DART add CE? Meanwhile, Con's arguments are great but don't address the resolution until the very end by demonstrating the potential failures of CE and how it is unnecessary for DART.
Con also provided more sources by pulling directly from the website as an example.
4 days left. A vote is helpful.
Would you like to vote again?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro didn't provide many compelling reasons for incorporating Cross-Examining.
However, Con demonstrated many reasons why Cross-Examining would be an inconvenience, such as the lack of a coding team and the overall amount of work would fall to one person. The idea that people would lose interest in the site.
Con backed up his reasoning with logical explanations. However, the forfeiting of a round merits the loss of a point.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter does provide some analysis of Con's arguments, but is required to specifically assess Pro's arguments as well. It is insufficient to state that they "didn't provide many compelling reasons" to affirm - if there were compelling reasons, the voter has to state why they were insufficient to win him the debate, and if there weren't compelling reasons, the voter has to state why they weren't compelling.
The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter doesn't assess sources presented by either side, and must assess sources presented by both to award these points.
The S&G point is insufficiently explained. The voter doesn't assess spelling or grammar in their RFD.
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. Both sides forfeited a round, yet the voter awards this point by only recognizing one of them.
**************************************************
I am poking the debate's resolution, seriously, like I always do. Unless people can actually prove me wrong on all fronts or I am just being a dumbasss I am usually correct. The advantage of that is I always argue exactly what the resolution is, exactly.
Part of me believes you’re poking fun at the debate’s resolution.
Another part of me thinks you’re being serious.
I am reporting your vote because you are not being clear enough. If you still think I won this debate, you can write the same verdicts with a little bit more details, hmm.
Unfortunately a modeling contest took away most of my free time resulting in me unable to find large chunks of time to type it here, which would take over an hour at least. It is highly likely that I will forfeit the second round although I do have ideas for rebuttals.
That is not saying I "will not" respond. If I do, that just means time cleared up, although it is highly unlikely.
Looking forward to seeing Intelligence’s rebuttals.
either is possible. Edeb8's creator somehow managed to implement it in between rounds shown as a small chat window between the two debaters.
Would cross examination take place in the comments or a new tab?
Con cannot win
why not, I like to have some fun.