Instigator / Pro

1502

rating

debates

35.37%

won

Topic

#3849

If Incorporating Cross Examination Is "Easy", DART should do it.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 10.23.2022 10:12PM
Last updated date: 01.04.2023 09:26AM
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

Contender / Con

Intelligence_06

1731

rating

167

debates

73.05%

won

Description

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).

Round 1

gugigor

10.24.2022 02:19PM

Pro

My argument is simple. Since the cost of introducing Cross Examination is negligible or irrelevant in the debate, the only contention left is the benefits and negative impacts of introducing Cross Examination itself. Of course, since Edeb8 introduces it as an optional feature, it will also be optional in Debate Art. You will not be forced to cross examine if you want to. However, for those who want to incorporate cross examination, it can only help the debate and make the arguments clearer.

Honesty and Fairness

As Massachusetts' Lawyer Weekly tells us, a witness (or perhaps even prosecutor) that is completely honest and fair will not need the cross examination. All the evidence would be very clear and straight forward. Even if we treat the Debaters on DART as prosecutors, the evidence and testimony provided would be similar to having a "witness" to question and wonder about the accuracy.

"A witness who is telling the truth need not be cross-examined. Unfortunately, human beings often make mistakesand sometimes lie. So until human beings become substantially more perfect, cross-examination will be necessary toascertain the truth." -- Source

Complexity of Arguments

Con might argue back that a form of "cross examination" may exist in long debates, for example, if the debate is even merely three rounds long, it is possible for me to ask a question, he responds, I ask back, he responds, I ask back, and he responds a final time. Is three rounds of question and response enough?

Common sense tells us more complex scenes or having to ensure the validity of a source may result in more complex questionings. For example, Knowing three rounds, Con may suggest a question is Irrelevant, forcing Pro to waste another entire round to explain the relevancy of the question. The mere ability to doubt the question gives a lot of time and three responses may not be enough.

As Woman's law gives the example:

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.
You: And you said that you took the blue line bus to get to the park that day?
- 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.
You: No further questions Your Honor.

Though a lot of other more moral issues or questions about definition between the debaters may result in more complex back-and forth. For example, "do you agree abortion is killing", "please define killing", or further clarifications on where the debate actually stands. A moral issue of Abortion for instance might have Pro Abortion be able to assert further on where he places the line for abortion, or Con to assert the stance is about personhood rather than the biological killing of any being resembling a human.

Woman's Law also shows the questions may show underlying bias and motivation, pointing out key problems in authors' beliefs, or dishonest persons even in interviews or poorly written articles.

In addition, the Debate rounds may get very large with 10,000 characters so it would be easy to miss details, especially with Pro and Con consistently having to quote and reply already in this small space. The short "chat" window function in Edeb8 makes it easier to see exactly what X is being addressed with Y, and the short summary of arguments or points can help make things more concise and clear, in case the debate layout is unclear, or someone presents a mediocre source that has multiple questionable problems.

Inherent Nature of Debate

Though debate can be competitive and seeking to gain glory, I assert that the greater good and benefit would be for both parties, and audience, to learn the true nature of things. Although persuasion can be one thing, the truth is another. Suppose both parties were merely arguing to "win", rather than figure out the truth. Dirty lawyers who want to win for money could let innocent people become framed, or guilty people go free. The immense harm of being shut into jail and fined, suffering for rest of life, while the moral corrupt would imply that you care more about a victory and your selfish gains. You treat it as a means to give yourself gains while ignoring everything else. And nobody could even potentially debate properly, if you don't know, when an argument is stacked with lies and loopholes, rather than truth and facts.

What I am getting at, is that the best form of Debate is when both parties improve and try to figure out the deeper nature of things so that they may learn, the mutual benefit of gaining information. If both parties continue on and on without true cross examination, it's difficult to figure out critical facts and small details. Forbes notices, that the best form of "Debating" is truly conversational for communication. And conversations don't force people to take 10 minutes speaking in turn for the debate. There is an communication between people. Some arguments require multiple assumptions in order for the point to go through, and perhaps each point can be questioned in turn.

Questions for Con:

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?

Intelligence_06

10.28.2022 01:13PM

Con

Welcome back, I guess. It has been 1 entire month since I... well... did any debating on this account.

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.

Arg 1: A Threat to the traditional structure of DART

My argument is simple. Incorporating CE would change how debating works and will possibly effectively drive users(such as me, who has grown used to this system resulting in me misestimating the effectiveness of strategies used in IRL debates such as in the LD system) away from this site, which is not only unpopular AF(There are only like 600 users here, less than 100 of them actually active) but also is a spiritual continuation of the long-lived DDO, in which said site utilized a more coarse edition of the system that we have here, without CE. A sizable userbase of this site has been the same collection of users that have been thriving on Debate.org since as early as probably 10 years ago, who came here to enjoy the system that they have grown used to, simply. Just to name a few:

Me(anc2006, who is with over 120 debates actually)
Barney(Ragnar)
Oromagi
David
Whiteflame
Mall

Obviously, DDO has always been that way, or at least somewhere like that. DART, with updated technology, enabled better text editors and the ability of hyperlink a source in blue, meeting the demand of old users at the same time attracting new ones.

Yes, new users indeed influx inward, some of them growing into big names such as Ehyeh, Novice and theweakeredge. The point is that we would not want to lose the rate we have, we want to double on it, or triple. Now we are left with a group of small but dedicated users that grew with the DDO system amplified to where we are now, and most of them didn't complain. In fact, Pro's proposal is the first one for adding CE in the 2.5 years I have seen on this site. Nobody asked for this and nobody complained. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Inserting a new window between rounds will just break some users and effectively destroy the way they think about debating, as the site's model now becomes something completely else given how important and useful CE is in Pro's Eyes.

Either that, or it is optional and nobody uses it and people just forgot the function existed given how people familiarized with the current model. This change would be akin to banning this site and forcing everyone to move to a different platform where everything works differently. Either way, uselessness.

Strategically, making things confunded is sometimes one stone that you place beneath your virtual foot to victory, because then you can force the opponent into self-contradiction and thus a loss. In some cases, asking questions, especially on this site where the styles have developed into setting traps in the rounds we have and only in such domains, would automatically grant oneself disadvantages. Even if it has been implimented, the fact that giving too much information is often a bad thing to oneself would stimulate oneself to NOT answer, thus rendering it useless in a third way.

Arg 2: A middle finger to the busy & Other time issues

Is it a time limit? Is it a limit on text? Can users say nothing and pass on?

If it is a time window, then people who are busy within such time period would be toast, as they are unable to respond to the less busy or more idle opponent they are debating with. More opportunity to speak would increase your chance of victory given what you said is useful at least, so in order to win, people either have to free up time for debating response or accept the fate and move on from this site. This would mean either addiction or not caring in either degree if it has been implemented.

Remember, DART debates can be initiated at any time, and the benefit of a long response period(such as 2 weeks) for both parties is when they are occupied for this entire week, they can make it up in the weekend or even the next. For CE, since the time management is held in the hands of the opponent as they control when they publish the text, this makes it not worth trying in some instances as one cannot just keep being free.

Famous debaters such as Whiteflame have family, kids, pets and jobs. This would make such people either less functional socially or drop seemingly. And I suppose, that a leaderboard majorly based on who has the most free time would be even less representative than one filled with noob-snipers.

The result of such effects may even be that occupied people hesitate to initiate and start debates, decreasing activity in this already small site. For obvious reasons, this is undesirable.

I will ask a question: What happens if nobody asks and nobody answers? Does the instigator have power over when they can CE or not? That devolves into more complications that I do not have time to talk about.

Arg 3: DebateArt.Com, or Mike, is busy

Just look at the Platform Development thread. Mike is the only dev(or at most one of a very small team). He can't implement everything quickly.

Let me give an example.

Added07.19.22 02:02PM
-->@Barney
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 :/

This is on page 64 of the thread aforementioned. Mike would have to take MONTHS just to make the new version. Even if it is theoretically easy to implement, the fact the dev team is unusually small makes it hard to synchronize the function with the mainframe in a short time. The easiest fundamental changes would be harder than it looks as such it seems. Even if this is in a MEEP or something, this, which is something no one before asked for, would have a considerable chance to be crossed off, rendering development futile on this project.

Q&A (A substitute/complement)

The fact my opponent included questions at the end is also a simple argument against his own argument. Why not use rounds themselves? Pro can ask these questions, I can answer them. The inclusion of questions and answers just voids the demand, as we are fine this way.

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?

Firstly, not all. Some are forfeiters and CE timeframes will be more futile minutes of waiting. Secondly, yes, and debaters on DART and previously DDO have morphed this to their advantage. It is possible and we are OK here.

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?

Remember in the title that it is DART that we are talking about, so none of these are relevant.

Round 2

gugigor

10.30.2022 04:51PM

Pro

Con makes a lot of good points, I already feel I'm a bit fighting uphill, but I'll keep asking questions and thinking about his points to see if they actually make sense.

New Style of Debate

Con says most active people would be unused to the new style of debate, so there is really no point conducting the Cross Examination debate. However, just because something is new or rare doesn't mean it can't be implemented. Think about the Live Debate format where you are using videos to communicate. It almost never happens -- Whiteflame vs Blamonkey's the last major one I can think of. But that doesn't mean we ban people from conducting the Live Debate. Even if almost nobody uses it, allowing it does seem to present further options ahead of time. The added Chat system provides an easy way for people to want to do Cross Examination to conduct their passionate questioning. Con says it would be similar to people forgetting about the CE system, but doesn't really provide evidence that people would hate CE to the point where practically nobody would want to do it. Just as the different taste that Live Debate offers (which, Whiteflame's example *does* include some much needed cross examination), the CE style debate would also offer more choices for people to enjoy different types of debate and improve more in the future.

Time Limit Issues

Con says that the Time limit makes it difficult to respond with various times, and have more free time to respond. He also points out CE has the unique weakness in that the opponent controls when they publish the text. Even if the CE lasted two weeks, he supposes that the persons may be unable to respond. However, he has given no evidence that within two weeks, we cannot notify the persons and ask them to respond to quick questions or continue their chatting. Let's look at a Forum example where questions were posed and the creator responded to them. On 10.18.2022, Public choice asked people how good they were at in real life debating. Oromagi says he is pretty hard of hearing, and Public choice responds on the same day whether he was born deaf, to which Oromagi says he got mumps and measles. Novice 2 says majority of people exaggerate about sources they cite, and public choice says most people in real life do that too. This conversation continues on and on with Public choice successfully making responses on the 30th to Rational madman and Elliott in a timely manner. Even though Con might say this is cherry picking, we can choose almost any forum conversation and you will see it's entirely possible for people to reply back and forth for a little bit. Having no responses in two weeks seems entirely unrealistic and Con must give a clear example where two instigators were interested in the debate, but would not have good time for Cross Examination.

Though in the extreme circumstance where nobody asks or answers, it does become a regular debate.

Con says Mike is busy and it might take months to make the CE, making it take very long to render development. I admit that Edeb8 does make it look much easier than it likely is, 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. I know technical issues can be very hard so I didn't want to consider the Website Front end development. (Though it is my expertise, it's a headache to argue about)

Okay moving on, the substitute/compliment.

Con says I do counter my own argument a little by pointing out there are 3~4 rounds where we *can* ask each other questions and respond, however, my point was to show, though the Q and A could be useful on its own, CE enhances the experience by allowing for limitless questions and answers, as long as the two debaters have time to ask. If anything, Con's answers clearly tell us that we can sidestep questions by making assumptions or directly stating your response.

Here, I have to spend time on my actual debate round explaining why the questions are irrelevant. He makes a lot of assumptions with his simple answer. He is implying that DART and Judicial system have big differences and can't be compared, while he has shown no differences between the two. They are both debating about a specific premise, giving evidence, refuting questionable statements and determining who is more convincing. Unless Con can show a big difference between the two, he cannot simply dismiss all these questions.

Con tells us the Edeb8 Chat window is irrelevant, seeming to miss out on the fact that I am using that Chat-response window to explain the questions in greater detail.

So I will ask once again: 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?

He doesn't explain how the second question is irrelevant. I will repeat that in many debates they have a quick one liner answer to a specific question or definition. I don't see how this one does not apply to DART. He has not dismissed my sample questions from the Justice for women example regarding the evidence and exact timing of an event.

He has plainly dismissed the fallacies idea, and didn't explain why it doesn't apply to DART. 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. Each step of clarification and refutation serves to improve your argument and help you proceed forward. Maybe you just needed a very small enhancement to bring your argument to the next step. We don't know what Con thinks, *Because* he has shown the pitfalls of the 4 round debate replay.

Big Question: Does Con think he could have advocated "none of these are relevant" much better in the CE system compared to the current system?

By giving a one sentence reply, Con has wasted part of his chances of winning, if he cannot convince in two rounds that the questions are irrelevant or quickly answer them. He is forced to make a choice and "Fight" the argument by plainly dismissing them instead of being able to converse and explain thoroughly which parts of my argument is wrong, and which one is correct.

Dropped Arguments:

Honestly And Fairness - Con has not address fallacious arguments, sources that need back-and-forth discussion with nitty gritty parts, assumptions made, so on and so forth. Con has actually DEMONSTRATED his assumption and simply tried to dismiss all the questions with one single over generalized statement, without explaining why the nature of Chat system, the nature of fallacies, is truly irrelevant to the Topic at hand. It's because people make assumptions that cause the need for the Cross Examination. We may have very well already resolved His claim of "these questions are irrelevant" by the time two weeks' CE has ended, while This questioning looks like it might go on till the end of the debate.

Conversation VS Debate - Notice how in a conversation, I could have instantly replied to one exact specific point that Con is making, focusing on weak points or parts where it's not completely clear? Not all arguments can be 100% crystal clear and detailed; that's why we need CE to figure out what's happening. If Round 1 Pro defines, Con asks for clarification, Pro asks why he needs to clarify.... the battle could go on and on for a very long time. The limited four round nature allows Con to prey on Pro's limited rounds, and force the debate to be "won" instead of truly learning how to converse your feelings, how to show your points in a way that's true to reality. The "speak 10 minutes on a row" allows Con here to continuously reject or push back the burden back to Pro. Just as here I was forced to spend another round waiting for Con to explain his "irrelevancy" claim, rather than settle it with a quick series of questions and answers.

Intelligence_06

11.13.2022 04:51PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

gugigor

11.14.2022 03:16PM

Pro

extend :V

Intelligence_06

11.21.2022 09:10AM

Con

Sorry for forfeiting last round due to personal issues. Since nothing new was introduced in the third round by Pro, this argument intends to address only the 2nd round arguments. To start, keep in mind, that I still haven't found anyone before Pro himself that asked for a CE-containing format.

1. Style of DArt

As I stated in R1, in DArt, letting your opponent clarify on his own arguments can be(and often is) a catalyst of your own failure, and leaving the competing set of points confounded can be used, by YOU, as an argument against them. Let me give an example.

My Opponent has presented that RFA holds the opinion that China detains minorities, however, he did not explain how credible RFA is.

At this point, it would be stupid to ask the opponent to present the credibility of RFA he could find as that just boosts the opposing side. The intelligent thing to do is to not let the opponent discover the lack of defense for as long as possible until at the end, slap it on the conclusion. Why would you need to ask questions that will ultimately lead to your opponent's case being stronger, what is the incentive?

Well, you see, Dart is not IRL debating nor is it Youtube-style Live debating, all that can be considered to be an argument is written there permanently. In this case:

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?

The only reason that would be needed is if the character space ran out, however, the upper threshold of our textbox is 30,000 characters, which has been deemed to be way too long and almost nobody fills it. In this case, I support raising the default limit to 12k or even 15k, but to leave separate boxes intended for Q&A would be unnecessary.

What would the separate textboxes be used for? Extensions of rounds. Unless there is a regulation specifying that the only action in CE is Q&A, why would people waste an opportunity where they can expand their own rounds to ask questions that could possibly weaken them relatively? Exactly, they won't. If the net benefit of extending your own argument asking no questions is more than asking, then the purpose of these little textboxes are exactly the same as the big ones intended for argumentation, rendering the separation unnecessary, again. If there is a regulation, still, 3 points are worth more than 1.

If it is a limited time period where people can back-and-forth without limit on how many texts you can post, then this again punishes having a life, resulting in people turning away from this site or just this novel format with reasons pre-explained.

Conversation VS Debate

This is DArt, where we never intended to replicate the conversation-ness factors of debating, but merely to pick up on and optimize the system DDO has used for more than a decade, where a substantial userbase here originated from. This is irrelevant. If you want to debate like how people have conversations in your impressions, you can go somewhere else, namely the forums. This site is kind enough to offer a place for us to sit around digital campfires after we are scarred fighting with brain nodes, we have no need of changing the purpose of the debating function here.

Honestly And Fairness

See above, I have demonstrated why this is on balance expected to be disadvantageous for the one that asks. If you are debating to be "fair" in your light, you can go elsewhere, namely the forums.

Example

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.

Let's take a look. These questions are perfect to be asked in a legal conversation in the forums, but in debating, we can just point out how poorly-constructed that argument is at the conclusion stage. If you have an advantage, you still have one; and by CE, you don't gain any given even if you don't lose it by literally helping the opponent building the case. Your purpose is to not acquire an answer agreed on by the community, it is to win by having the better set of logic out of the two.

2. Media

First off, I welcome my opponent to demonstrate why the Forums isn't already an ideal solution to what he desires, especially since the forums can host debates and my opponent agreed in round 2. The forums has everything Pro can ask for: A free text-editor, unlimited rounds on what is essentially Cross-examination, and everyone can judge by directly typing in the thread. You can type all questions and answers there.

Then, Pro places that Live debates are still hosted by some users, However:

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.

Pro does not and cannot represent the entire userbase, not even the entire active userbase which is already small(consisting of such as me, RM, Oro, Greyparrot, etc). The active userbase is used to having no CE, setting traps within the ambiguity as opposed to inquiry, having no CE and asked for none until this point. In fact, Edeb8 is a free site. Why wouldn't users who want to desperately try out the CE mode just go there, create a new account, and deal with it? Why wouldn't such users just go to the forums and enforce an idea that has been enforced prior? Why must we even implement something on the debating function that would take months at least and that only marginal traces of the population asked for? Exactly, we don't.

Just a heads up, pro has yet to present how people before him has asked for such a format or how or why his own opinion matters.

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.

Running 10,000m is easy, all you gotta do is take a step, and another, and another. However, it takes stamina and time. Just because it is easy does not mean it is not time-consuming.

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.

Round 4

gugigor

12.05.2022 09:10AM

Pro

Forfeited

Intelligence_06

12.05.2022 09:26AM

Con

My opponent has made no remarks since and I am not allowed to create new points in the last round, so the conclusions made in the last round will be copied here.

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.

Intelligence_06

12.31.2022 02:33AM

#12

4 days left. A vote is helpful.

Intelligence_06

12.25.2022 01:42PM

#11

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

Would you like to vote again?

whiteflame

12.23.2022 06:55PM

#10

-->

@Intelligence_06

@gugigor

@Sir.Lancelot

**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************

Intelligence_06

12.23.2022 04:49PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

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.

Sir.Lancelot

12.23.2022 04:40PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Part of me believes you’re poking fun at the debate’s resolution.

Another part of me thinks you’re being serious.

Intelligence_06

12.23.2022 04:23PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

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.

Intelligence_06

11.09.2022 01:03PM

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.

Barney

10.24.2022 03:58PM

Looking forward to seeing Intelligence’s rebuttals.

gugigor

10.24.2022 01:51PM

-->

@K_Michael

either is possible. Edeb8's creator somehow managed to implement it in between rounds shown as a small chat window between the two debaters.

K_Michael

10.24.2022 06:04AM

-->

@gugigor

Would cross examination take place in the comments or a new tab?

RationalMadman

10.24.2022 04:54AM

-->

@gugigor

Con cannot win

gugigor

10.23.2022 10:13PM

-->

@RationalMadman

@Barney

@Intelligence_06

why not, I like to have some fun.

Sir.Lancelot

12.28.2022 04:52PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.