Proposal to edit "Debate" section of Help Center

1. The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate. All rounds contain arguments consisting of any or all of the following: argumentation, rebuttals, defenses, conclusions, and, as appropriate, references to sourcing. Instigator may designate specific content in each round, such as limiting rounds in which argumentation, rebuttal, defense, and conclusions are contained.  

"2. Waiving any round by suggestion of either participant is not allowed. The stipulation of arguments equaling the number of rounds prevails. Instigator has the privilege, and responsibility, of having the first argument of each round and may not abdicate it by suggestion in the Description entered during the challenge phase." 

3. It is recommended for ease of voting that sourcing references be contained within the body of text, at the bottom of each relevant argumentation round, However, for brevity if word/space count is limiting, it is acceptable to document sourcing references in comments within the context of the debate file, but only during the argumentation phase. It s suggested that sourcing not be in an external file by linkage as this causes even greater complication of time for voters, and may result in their negative conduct assessment.

4. When a participant’s argument round is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits that round and most likely will be punished by the voters. If the number of forfeited rounds for either participant equals or exceeds half the rounds, it is an automatic voted loss of the debate. The opposing participant may indicate “extend argument to next round” in the event an opponent forfeits a round, or, a continuation of argumentation may be entered and published. 

5. In any round, either participant may concede the debate. That participant may either abandon the debate at that point [automatic forfeit of each round], or indicate “concede” in each succeeding round[s]. The opposing participant may either continue argumentation in each succeeding round, or indicate “extend argument” in each succeeding round. In any case, concession, without recourse of re-consideration, is a voted loss of the debate.

7. Neither debate participant may directly suggest voting tactics to voters during argumentation, or in comments. The entry of text such as, “I have proven my argument of [enter brief description] by virtue of [enter brief description]" is acceptable.

8. Neither debate participant may declare victory over the opponent in any round preceding the last round as it may invite conduct violation by voters.  It is a conduct violation in forfeiture because the opponent may not assume a round forfeiture is complete debate forfeiture. In the last round, victory may be suggested, but only by commentary such as suggested in the preceding paragraph of this section. This policy will be followed in the instance of forfeiture or concession as a manner of courtesy.

How it works

We use text debates, a communication format in which two participants defend their opposing positions on the chosen topic, using the written word.

 

Each debate has three important informational elements pre-agreed before the start:

1. Title, which unless specified otherwise serves as the resolution.
   
2. Details, which lists the various mechanical constraints such as the character limit.
   
3. Description, which allows inclusion of any pertinent details to include definitions, expanded resolution, special rules, and scope limitations.
   

 

Each debate has three areas separated by tabs:

1. Arguments, which is the field of play.
   
2. Comments, which is essentially the stands. Debaters should minimize contact with it during the competition; while they may ask for clarifications on a vote or correct a typo in their case, they must never try to win here.
   
3. Votes, which is were judgements are cast based on what transpired within the arguments.
   

Q: May I play devil’s advocate for a position I’m against?

A: Yes. This is in fact strongly encouraged, as it’s arguably the best way to learn why people have those opposing viewpoints.

Why is it strongly encouraged to play devil's advocate?

 I think the concept needs to have clear definition in the argumenmt phase that waiving a round shall not be done.

1. Conduct violations are ultimately handled by voters. We could make all the rules we want against forfeitures as an example, but the voters will still be the ones who regulate it; so it becomes a matter for the voting policy.
   
2. Saying voters have to treat waived rounds as an equal offense to forfeitures, would be a change in the rules against common practice as it's been done. That there is ambiguity here, makes it a matter for the next referendum to settle the matter decisively.