All current debate sites are of poor quality or in a poor condition, including DebateArt

In this debate, the burden is shared, and con opens his case without definitions of what a debate site is. I believe this goes on to hurt him later. However he does define poor as worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality, and that is the baseline for both debaters. At a glance at the first argument, I am on the face convinced that Kialo is not in poor condition, but con only shows that debate art is not poor by the standard of website functionality in argument 2. This presents obvious reductios such as a perfectly functioning website with no users etc. and it seems clear that there should be some larger criteria involved. But con tries to close this gap with the third argument that deals with the actual activity and user base of the site. Con says that the website has a "the front-page detailing how there is “a team of community-approved moderators” and that the entire site is driven by its community." this is not compelling to me as it is an appeal to authority and does not actually prove the claim in question and common experience on the website will tell you that hardly any of the moderators are active, just to show the flaws of the implication. Regardless, we get a clear idea of con's conjunctive criteria, P∧Q, P representing quality website functionality, and Q representing an active community and user base. Modus Ponens off that for the argument.

So while pro may actually seem to have a larger burden, it is actually not the case by the end of the round. Because con did not argue for debate island, all pro needs to do is disprove that the two platforms in question are poor debate sites. He does this by first defining the pivotal term in the resolution. Because there is generally a distinction between the two concepts and the dictionaries were both standard representations of public language I would take that alone prime facie. But, con shows that by the website's own statement, it is a source for "collaborative reasoning" which seems distant to the environments associated with debate art or debate island. Now because con did not define the term in question, and does not have the opportunity to respond to pro by the one-round structure, pro wins this point with three clear distinguishing factors in conjunction with the above definitions.

Now all that is in question is that P∧Q conjunction and pro goes for the second proposition, where he shows that hardly any of the users are active, a ton of forfeited debates, and a lack of participatory activity. Now, this alone is relevant to me even without a point of comparison because con did not argue for Q well.

Arguments: The fact that "There is only a single open challenge," can show that people accept them all, or that hardly any are created. On my view, there is an underdetermination there and con does not present some sort of statistical analysis to resolve that. Appeals to the authority in question, con also points out how there are 41 ongoing debates, but this does not account for the number of forfeits like pro mentions. On the flip side, pro using debate.org as a reference does not seem to account for the time the respective platforms have existed, debateart for 4-5 years, and debate.org for 14. However, even by trajectory and proposition, it is clear that debate art is nowhere near the former. Another potential objection could be that debate.org breaks the norm of debate sites, but as a voter, I am only aware of 3 debate sites, only two of which are on the baseline. Because of this, the only points that remain without scrutiny are the lack of activity on our platform with the presidential race as evidence, the significant quantity of forfeiture on the website, and the lack of strong growth, and the arguments go to pro.

For further note, I am very disappointed in other votes on this debate.

I must say, I'm really impressed with Con.

Con starts off very strong. He lays out the definitions which establishes the framework for quality and clarifies that it is an "on-balance" debate. His first argument uses the website "Kialo" as an example. He provides the statistical data which shows high numbers in regard to contributions, claims and votes, using this as evidence that their website has grown significantly. The argument's strength is based on the satisfaction on the high supply of users. Con's second contention is that DART is currently high-quality, and he uses Google Lighthouse to assess the score and compare it with a website such as DebateIsland. In showing that Dart's score is higher, Con makes the point with data indicating DART is a high-quality site.

Con's third argument is fairly weak when he tries to say that DART is in a good state. He makes vague claims by saying there are a lot of active users but fails to specify an exact number. Con does elaborate that there are currently 41 debates in the debating stage, but there is a lack of evidence and information required. Firstly, what does Con mean by "good state?" How many active users are on the website? Are there enough moderators? It's questions like these that remain unanswered.

Pro starts off by introducing some new terminology to explain the difference between a "discussion" and a "debate." He states that Kialo is not an applicable example because it isn't a "debate" site. He uses the definitions of the terms to highlight how Kialo's criteria makes it a "discussion" site. While Pro is providing reasonable explanations for this distinction to exist, this argument still falls flat because it appears based on his own interpretation of what constitutes a debate site vs a discussion site. Just because Kialo isn't a traditional debate site doesn't disqualify it from being a valid example. The only way this rebuttal could be successful is if Pro managed to prove that a second category of the website existed, but the homepage of Kialo shows it is categorized as a 'debate site,' despite the differing definitions.

Pro unsuccessfully attacks Con's argument about DART being in a good state by comparing it to DDO. This argument is invalid because DDO is a dead site. The resolution addresses only "current debate sites." So this point is void from Pro.

Spelling and sources are a tie. Conduct is also a tie.

Con used data, evidence, and research to back his constructive arguments. Pro uses semantics to explain how Kialo is not a valid example, but these technicalities are insufficient on their own to establish how Kialo isn't a debate site. Furthermore, Pro's second rebuttal would have held more weight if he hadn't compared DART to a website that no longer exists.

This is a victory for Con.