Platform development

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

11.15.2020 01:14AM

-->

@3RU7AL

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?

Nope so I can lie about having my mind changed in a debate.

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

Yes but in order to measure if someone is telling a truth you need to know what is going on inside their mind. Without it a discussion depending on convincing the otherside is not good grounds to measure a debate because we have no way in reading people's minds.

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.

Does self-moderate mean you can vote for yourself?

Do you think it would be fair to say that you have zero interest in convincing your debate partner?

Maybe but in a debate a person's interest should be convincing the audience so your question is irrelevant to what a debate is about.

#1442

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.15.2020 11:46AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Yes but in order to measure if someone is telling a truth you need to know what is going on inside their mind. Without it a discussion depending on convincing the otherside is not good grounds to measure a debate because we have no way in reading people's minds.

That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.

That way you could tell instantly if someone NEVER grants any points to their opponent.

The ranking system itself would incentivize some level of cooperation, otherwise you might find yourself with nobody willing to debate.

#1443

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.15.2020 11:49AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Does self-moderate mean you can vote for yourself?

You can "vote for yourself" indirectly by not voting for your opponent.

If neither side grants any points, the debate ends in a tie.

#1444

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.15.2020 11:54AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Maybe but in a debate a person's interest should be convincing the audience so your question is irrelevant to what a debate is about.

I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.

If my opponent is convinced, the audience will overwhelmingly be convinced as well (double-win).

ALSO, most "real-life" debates are 1-on-1 without an audience, and if the majority of your practice involves pandering to an audience, you will find yourself at a distinct disadvantage in these critical "real-life" debates.

#1445

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

11.15.2020 03:31PM

-->

@3RU7AL

That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.

I am guessing debater 1 gets 1, debater 2 gets 1 and the audience gets 1.

Having this kinda reduces the audience vote. It is the entire reason for the debate to convince the audience not persuading both debater and audience.

I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.

Under the assumption they agree with a discussion format and are willing to have their mind changed. Highly unlikely. Biden V Trump is a clear example at the peak of debating. If that was changed to Biden having to persuade Trump, the entire time would be spent trying to but we both know he is clueless or deliberately misleading people so Biden is wasting his time.

Didn't address everything else because I was going to repeat myself even more.

#1446

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.15.2020 03:59PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.
I am guessing debater 1 gets 1, debater 2 gets 1 and the audience gets 1.

Your SMD (self-moderated-debate) ranking (1/1/1) would show under your username and could be set as a qualifier to accept a debate.

The first number would be the number of points you've given other players (points, not "wins").

The second number would be the number of points you've received from other players (points, not "wins").

The third number would be the number of self-moderated-debates you've participated in.

The ratios of these numbers would also yield some insight into the overall skill and open-mindedness of the individual player.

#1447

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.15.2020 04:22PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.
Under the assumption they agree with a discussion format and are willing to have their mind changed.

Not at all.

Imagine you have a disagreement with one of your own parents and or siblings (in-real-life).

Are you better served by insulting them and making them look stupid in order to get them to shut-up (like in a typical debate)?

Or are you perhaps better served by COVINCING THEM with rhetorical skill.

Highly unlikely. Biden V Trump is a clear example at the peak of debating.

Your example simply highlights the PROBLEM with a "traditional-style" debate.

If that was changed to Biden having to persuade Trump,

AND, Trump having to persuade Biden...

...the entire time would be spent trying to but we both know he is clueless or deliberately misleading people so Biden is wasting his time.

And how is that outcome materially different, I mean, how is this an example of the "superiority" of "traditional-style" debate??

By every possible measure, a "traditional-style" debate is demonstrably WORSE than a "self-moderated" debate.

(IFF) you told Trump and Biden and the Audience that ONLY the participants could award points to each other (presumably on common-ground) and the "moderator" was simply there to keep time (THEN) the audience could much more easily judge who was a better NEGOTIATOR (incidentally a crucial skill in state-craft, also known as DIPLOMACY which just happens to be one of the PRIMARY jobs of so-called politicians).

In your "nightmare" scenario, perhaps Biden would grant a point to Trump for something they agree about, perhaps like, oh, let's say getting China to protect American intellectual property or something. And then Trump gives ZERO points to Biden.

The media isn't going to focus on "the win for Trump". They're going to focus on the point of agreement, and the fact that Biden appeared to be a more honest and open debater.

Some outlets might declare, "Biden is a weak compromiser who pandered to Trump". But they're obviously going to say stuff like that REGARDLESS OF THE DEBATE FORMAT. AND even then, it's going to be difficult for them to completely avoid talking about THE POINT.

Some outlets might declare, "Trump WINS DEBATE 1 to zip" but they're not going to have much of a story unless they talk about THE POINT and WHY it was granted. I think Trump supporters would be seriously confused by this because they seem to imagine that there is ZERO OVERLAP between the policies of the two candidates.

And I would consider that a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT over the current system that simply promotes mindless spectacle.

#1448

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

11.15.2020 05:26PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Or are you perhaps better served by COVINCING THEM with rhetorical skill.

That is one on one. A debate has an audience. If your siblings were involved you can pander to them to help your case.

Your example simply highlights the PROBLEM with a "traditional-style" debate.

The traditional-style is the way to debate because it is a waste of time convincing your opponent.

AND, Trump having to persuade Biden...

Neither will happen so the audience has less to feel something about.

And how is that outcome materially different

Your not wasting your time talking to Trump and spending it convincing voters. That is materially different.

you told Trump and Biden and the Audience that ONLY the participants could award points to each other (presumably on common-ground) and the "moderator" was simply there to keep time

Trump wouldn't accept these rules nor with any Republican. They rely on voter suppression, sound-bytes instead of allowing people to vote and an actual policy discussion. To even accept this would show just how awful Republican ideas are which would be stupid for any Republican to accept.

the audience could much more easily judge who was a better NEGOTIATOR (incidentally a crucial skill in state-craft, also known as DIPLOMACY which just happens to be one of the PRIMARY jobs of so-called politicians).

Undecided voters are so stupid it is insane. To even think they can't pick from the two before the debates has started shows the lack of understanding of the platforms. A debate won't change that.

The media isn't going to focus on "the win for Trump". They're going to focus on the point of agreement, and the fact that Biden appeared to be a more honest and open debater.

The media or news outlets posts what is popular. This can be this.

And I would consider that a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT over the current system that simply promotes mindless spectacle.

Your view requires Republicans to be stupid enough to accept those conditions.

#1449

Castin

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,225

Castin

11.18.2020 02:16AM

-->

@3RU7AL

I don't see why it shouldn't be given a try. I'd be interested to watch a self-moderated debate. You'd need to choose your opponent well, I imagine. But between two people willing to have a constructive debate it could be a refreshing change.

#1450

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.19.2020 11:55AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Undecided voters are so stupid it is insane. To even think they can't pick from the two before the debates has started shows the lack of understanding of the platforms. A debate won't change that.

This seems to be an indictment of "traditional style" debate, or all forms of debate generally and not specifically an indictment of the proposed "self-moderated" debate framework.

#1451

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

11.21.2020 09:13PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

I think it would be a good idea to give mods the ability to vote on debates that end in a no vote tie

#1452

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

11.21.2020 09:16PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

I think it would be a good idea to give mods the ability to vote on debates that end in a no vote tie

I agree.

37 days later

#1453

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

12.29.2020 12:06AM

-->

@DebateArt.com

It would be handy if there was a little green "w" or a little red "L" under the finished marker on people's debate's pages.

19 days later

#1454

Debates: 50

Posts: 3,016

01.17.2021 07:19PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Three minor things I would love to see updated:

Tied categorical votes no longer giving points to both sides (it's a little confusing to look at)
Updating "Spelling and Grammar" to "Legibility" (we did a referendum awhile ago to allow other issues to penalize this point)
Changing "Four points" to "Categorical" (four points is technically seven points across four categories)

Topic's author

#1455

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

01.18.2021 12:56PM

-->

@Barney

Hi, thanks, I've made the notes, I will make all the mentioned changes. I am also working on a big rewrite to bring the site to another level, from just a minor hobby project to a full-blown social network dedicated to debating and opinion exchanges, and soon we will need to have a huge discussion on the fundamental things that we should change and improve, it's gonna be interesting :)

#1456

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

01.18.2021 02:18PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Impressive. Please consider leveraging blockchain.

Topic's author

#1457

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

01.19.2021 10:32PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Hi, in what way do you think it would make sense to leverage it? I will definitely look into it if we can find some good use cases for it :)

#1458

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

01.21.2021 12:42PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

You could use it to store text (forums) and images (user icons).

It's basically free storage. [LINK] [LINK]

#1459

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

01.21.2021 01:04PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

More specifically, website to blockchain integration, https://youtu.be/Og7hRmy1p1I?t=2555

Topic's author

#1460

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

01.22.2021 07:15PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Thanks, I will definitely look into it, but I will have to do proper research on the subject, I don't want to be caught up in something that is just hyped, like all those start-ups that got caught up in NoSQL databases a few years and then had to migrate all their data to the "normal" databases when they realized it wasn't a right tool for their use-case.

11 days later

#1461

RationalMadman

Debates: 568

Posts: 19,930

RationalMadman

02.03.2021 12:52PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

I request a feature for people whom the moderators have banned from reporting to put a middle finger to the moderators instead.

Thank you.

#1462

fauxlaw

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

fauxlaw

02.03.2021 10:37PM

-->

@Barney

My answer to your recent PM:

With our recent PM discussion clarified, I like the proposals on voting protocols. I still wish, however, that as voters, we could award a kudos to a superlative [whatever we individually consider that to be] performance by a debater. It does risk turning into a "I liked that debate." Kudos should point to a specific argument that sold a previous skeptical voter on a point argued. That said, I think kudos would belong in the argument criteria only. I would even argue that a losing debater could potentially be awarded kudos even if other criteria points gave the opponent the victory.

12 days later

#1463

Debates: 50

Posts: 3,016

02.16.2021 02:53AM

-->

@DebateArt.com

There does not presently seem to be a way for users to update their email addresses, which should be fairly easy to fix.

Topic's author

#1464

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

02.16.2021 08:33AM

-->

@Barney

Yeah, I've been meaning to add it for a while but at the moment, I can always do it manually, if needed

#1465

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

02.16.2021 03:03PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

So I suggested this a few days back on Discord, but you never responded.

Would it be difficult adding a feature where mods can extend voting windows?

Obviously we would have to establish the consent of both debaters to do so, but it would keep a lot of debates from being ties if time is the restricting factor.

Ragnar agreed:

"I've long wanted us to be able to edit the voting window. An FF with a 6 month voting window, we should be able to shrink it once there's a couple votes. Something where people are asking for more time to vote, unless either debater outright rejects it, we should be able to expand the voting window."

Topic's author

#1466

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

02.16.2021 04:26PM

-->

@MisterChris

Oh, I am afraid I haven't been in Discord for quite a while, busy af these days :/

Regarding the voting windows, maybe somebody brought this up before but I can't recall, if to be honest. I am not sure how difficult it would be, I'd need to think it through but I am pretty sure it's doable.

#1467

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

02.16.2021 04:29PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Awesome, wish I knew about coding so I could help but alas

10 days later

#1468

Debates: 7

Posts: 516

02.27.2021 02:10PM

Sometimes when I hit the quotation button, I get taken to the index page of the site. Not sure what is up with that

Topic's author

#1469

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

02.27.2021 09:48PM

-->

@Bringerofrain

You mean the button that is a part of the text editor?

#1470

Debates: 7

Posts: 516