Platform development

Author: DebateArt.com
DebateArt
DART

Posts

Pinned
Total: 1,732
#1411
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BearMan
Self Moderated debates will be obsolete.
(IFF) your goal when debating is to CONVINCE your opponent (THEN) self-moderated debate is the best possible measure of your skill

If you want a discussion just go on the forums
That's also an excellent option although I believe adding some structure to the discussion without turning the entire thing into an overt "appeal to popularity" or an "appeal to authority" might prove to be educational.

Would you personally object to adding "self-moderated" as a debate option, as long as it didn't interfere with any of the current rules or rankings?
#1412
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?
As long as it is an option, sure.

What exactly would that look like?
It would look exactly like the current "judicial decision" style of unranked debate currently available, except instead of selecting a "judge", only the participants in the debate would be allowed to vote (not for themselves, but optionally for their opponents).
#1413
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@seldiora
The problem with your proposal is that you assume the people are open-minded (like my account arguing ridiculous things).
Quite the opposite, actually.

Most people are very closed-minded.

That's exactly why winning a self-moderated debate would be more impressive than 100 debates won on technicalities. 
#1414
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@seldiora
The more you give up, the more your side gets shaky and you lose the debate.
Not necessarily.

Imagine you engage in a self-moderated debate and your opponent presents a steel-man that makes your argument 10X stronger.

Would you consider granting them a point for such a gift?
#1415
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Competition debate, I'm much less willing to concede points, as I think a person's role is to defend his side of the debate to their utmost, and again, competition.
What's the point of "defending" an argument if that argument has no ability to CONVINCE others?

Wouldn't that be like a religious zealot defending the infallibility of their preferred holy book?

Imagine zealot "A" arguing, "my ancient holy book is infallible because the book itself tells me it's infallible" (appeal to authority).

Imagine zealot "B" arguing, "my ancient holy book is infallible because the book itself tells me it's infallible" (appeal to authority).

If you automatically disqualify all appeals-to-authority (dogma, judges) and appeals-to-popularity (audience, voters), then your only VALID option is to appeal to your opponent's sense of LOGIC (and or emotion).

This skill (convincing an opponent via self-moderated-debate) is a PRACTICAL REAL-WORLD-SKILL.

Rules wonking and clever implicit insults (that often "win" traditional, ranked formal debates) might silence a frustrated opponent IRL, but this type of "win" will often backfire.  As much as we might relish a "sick-burn" and a (virtual) room-full of derisive laughter, that "win" will never be as productive as a well-crafted appeal to common-ground.
#1416
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I wouldn't really care whether self-moderated debates would be added, rather I don't see them actually being used.
#1417
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BearMan
I wouldn't really care whether self-moderated debates would be added, rather I don't see them actually being used.
Sounds good.

Can I mark you down as "not opposed"?
#1418
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Yea sure
#1419
seldiora
seldiora's avatar
Debates: 158
Posts: 352
2
6
10
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
2
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
to be fair, 99% of best convincing speeches are done with emotional impact and eloquence which are completely different from weighing issues and ideas. Richard Nixon would react very differently if he was debating Oromagi whether we should go to the moon, vs convincing the public whether we should go to the moon.
#1420
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?
As long as it is an option, sure.

What exactly would that look like?
It would look exactly like the current "judicial decision" style of unranked debate currently available, except instead of selecting a "judge", only the participants in the debate would be allowed to vote (not for themselves, but optionally for their opponents).

Why would they want to do that again?
#1421
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,220
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
What's the point of "defending" an argument if that argument has no ability to CONVINCE others?

The fun of winning.
The Fun of affirmation.
Ends and means justification.
To further convince oneself, and remind oneself 'why one holds their current beliefs, and change those beliefs at times.
Doesn't really mean that one throws out convincing the other and the audience.
Objective arguments seem to me an excellent way of winning after all.
Even disregarding religion, I sometimes feel morality 'is just an appeal to authority. . . Or aesthetics.

I do agree that in convincing your 'opponent, I think it necessary to consider what 'they believe, and how you might guide their thought and will to see and acknowledge that which they find difficult to deny, be it by logic or emotion.

#1422
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BearMan
Thanks!
#1423
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@seldiora
If you automatically disqualify all appeals-to-authority (dogma, judges) and appeals-to-popularity (audience, voters), then your only VALID option is to appeal to your opponent's sense of LOGIC (and or emotion).
#1424
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
To further convince oneself,
If you're confident in your own belief, why would you bother?

Why would talking at someone else (while ignoring them) help YOU convince YOURSELF?
#1425
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
I do agree that in convincing your 'opponent, I think it necessary to consider what 'they believe, and how you might guide their thought and will to see and acknowledge that which they find difficult to deny, be it by logic or emotion.
Well stated.
#1426
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
only the participants in the debate would be allowed to vote (not for themselves, but optionally for their opponents).
Why would they want to do that again?
In order to incentivize both parties to stake out common-ground.

You can't win a "self-moderated" debate if you refuse to take me seriously.
#1427
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,220
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If you're confident in your own belief, why would you bother?
Why would talking at someone else (while ignoring them) help YOU convince YOURSELF?
Fine points, that I agree with you on.

What's the point of "defending" an argument if that argument has no ability to CONVINCE others?
Though I still think my points are valid in response to this question.
Perhaps I simply lack the ability, but one meets many obstinate people on the internet, that one does not expect to convince.
Sorry a bit rambling here below.
. . .
It's like playing a video game, people want a challenge, but they 'still want to win, to beat the opponent.
Hope for an opponent who'll fight them, but not be so skilled as to crush them.
Want to be able to showcase their own RTS or FPS skills.
. . .
Sometimes a person is simply confused how others could possess certain beliefs that they find 'wrong, yet people still possess these beliefs.
Sometimes a person just wants to see 'why, though they don't want to be convinced of those beliefs.
Rather they want to crush those beliefs, not be affected by any of the opponents arguments, and just say wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't understand how you can be so mistaken. Even after all my objective arguments you still won't admit defeat?
Clearly you're just an idiot, and your beliefs were of no real threat or consequence to me, I can continue on happy that my beliefs are right, even though other people hold different beliefs, they are based upon faulty logic.
. . .
It's just using some person that you expect to beat, to 'further convince yourself of your beliefs. 'Even if you're confident, people often like having 'reason to be confident.
You might say an opponent Steelman is better than an opponent Strawman,
But sometimes people like playing video games on easy mode,
Or only doing light lifting at the gym.
. . .
I 'do agree with not ignoring the opponents points, but sometimes that's a tactic people try, since they like winning the debate.
Myself I'm prone to admitting fault or weakness in the comments of a debate, than 'in the debate.
Unless I'm debating someone as a friendly conversation or think it'll aid me to admit fault then counterattack. Then it's easy enough to admit fault.
. . .
Confidence, can be gained by experience, effort exerted and proven.
#1428
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
But sometimes people like playing video games on easy mode,
Good point.  No harm in a quick ego boost.
#1429
seldiora
seldiora's avatar
Debates: 158
Posts: 352
2
6
10
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
2
6
10
When will we’ve able to put pictures in our arguments? I feel like it’s the only reason RM hasn’t rated anyone 10/10 in presentation yet lol
#1430
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@DebateArt.com
Unrated debates only display the half-star inside the list of debates on someone's profile but on the main 'Debates' tab, it appears to be rated (as no half-star icon equivalent appears at all).
#1431
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
I don't know about the rest of it, but ignoring the opponent's points is not something a good voter would let you get away with. If I see someone dropped an argument, I give the argument point for that section of the debate to the other person. 
#1432
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
Obviously, this is very trivial, and probably won't need to be added any time soon, but I've seen that forum mafia usually has a ton of rules regarding editing posts and deleting posts. It would be great for game mods to have an option to make it so that there will be no post modifications in certain topics.


#1433
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Something is wrong with this debate

I am supposed to win this already with an increase of points, but instead it shows "-1:-6:68" or something and/or just 0. What is happening here?
#1434
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@DebateArt.com

There is a problem with this one. Why did it overcount
#1435
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
da fuq
#1436
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@DebateArt.com
@BearMan
This is the first time something like this happened.

If Ancap agrees to delete this debate then I may think about it, but considering how abnormal this is, it is to gather the site programmer’s attention.

This debate was never meant to be deleted and I won. I won justly. Why is this a thing, and why is this the only example.
Topic's author
#1437
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
-->
@Intelligence_06
It's a bug, I will fix it
#1438
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.
I can lie and say I wasn't convinced even the slightest and we have no way in measuring a person's thoughts. 
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".
I think there is a distinction between a discussion and a debate. A debate is used for the purpose of persuading the audience into taking your side. A discussion is talking to one another at the very basic level. I guess you can say the "Debates" section is for debates and the "Forum" section is for discussions but from my point of view forums become a circle jerk or a pseudo debate section.

I don't have an opinion on the debate tallying. 
 
#1439
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I can lie and say I wasn't convinced even the slightest and we have no way in measuring a person's thoughts. 
A judge can lie and say they are unbiased when in-fact they are emotionally (implicitly) predisposed to one position (and or participant) over the other.  Have you ever encountered a truly "unbiased" judge?

Based strictly on your proposed, "measure of a person's thoughts", both debate styles appear to be equal.

With perhaps some advantage to "self-moderated" because each participant would likely be expected to be biased toward themselves, (which denies any unfair advantage to either side) which would make a WIN exceptionally challenging and therefore exceptionally valuable.
#1440
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,838
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A discussion is talking to one another at the very basic level. I guess you can say the "Debates" section is for debates and the "Forum" section is for discussions but from my point of view forums become a circle jerk or a pseudo debate section.
Do you think it would be fair to say that you have zero interest in convincing your debate partner?