Total posts: 497
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
If we could organize an ironperson BP live debate, I'd be 100% down to do that. Random topic with 15 minutes of prep time.
Though I would prefer if we got 5-7 minutes of prep time in between speeches, since in non-ironperson BP rounds, I spend a significant portion of my partner's speech writing my speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm not sure I 100% follow: is the argument just every group should have the right to be able to network with people who're likely to be useful for their lives? Seems like a standard offsets-discrimination argument -- one of the benefits minority groups are denied, per the standard argument for affirmative action, is networking, in addition to education, jobs, etc. Doesn't seem different/unique.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Say the Pro in a debate takes utilitarianism to be self-evident.
Con then runs a purely deontological case and challenges util. Would that be a kritik?
Created:
Posted in:
I've heard postfiat kritiks being described as "non-unique disadvantages" and "arguments that challenge assumptions in the resolution."
However, I'm unsure on where the line is drawn.
If the Pro case assumes a utilitarian framework, would challenging that utilitarianism with an alternate framework, such as egoism or deontology, be a kritik? The intuitive answer is "no," but a popular argument on DDO that "suffering is good and we should seek suffering" has been described as a kritik -- that seems logically equivalent to proposing a different framework.
Is an impact turn a kritik?
What about a radical counterplan? (e.g. in the debate "RONA should adopt a new conflict of interest policy," if Con advocates a counterplan of shutting down all HOAs; or, in the debate "we should implement a system of school vouchers," if Con advocates a counterplan of banning all private schools)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Oh no, it's not a problem unique to me.
I'm saying I don't like the full width to the point where it impairs readability.
It's like any other full width mode.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Really though, for reasons I'm not quite able to explain, it's significantly impairing the readability of my own debate rounds for me, to the point where I'm having to C/P my opponent's case into a Google Doc to read it.
I really want a non-full-width mode.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Maybe create an option that allows people to change between modes?
Because I really dislike the full-width mode.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
But in what is it hard to look at? I simply removed the categories sidebar which was pretty much useless and took too much space on the side.
The fonts look untidy and weird.
The sideward expansion has made cases seem smaller than they actually are.
And the categories sidebar was useful so I could just directly click to look at debates from a particular category.
I'm also just used to the sidebar being around, as on DDO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Could you please change the debate screen back to what it used to be? Full width is hard to look at.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi. I'm Tej. I'm from India. Came on here from DDO.
Joined DDO in 2015 and it completely revolutionized my life, encouraged me to pursue formal debate in HS. I'm currently a sophomore in high school and debate in World Schools and British Parliamentary debate; have debated and been reasonably successful at the international level as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
It wouldn't be fair to people stumbling accross this site to be at a significant disadvantage right off the bat simply because people from a different website are on this one too.
It wouldn't be fair to people stumbling across DDO either, or any site with an existing user base.
Created:
Posted in:
I think transfer the entire DDO HOF here, then wait for a few months or even a year and continue it here. If HOF continues on DDO, combine the two HOF elections or whatever.
Treat the two sites as the same community, as far as HOF is concerned.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
And thett3, mind you language, especially when you are creating topics.
The Code of Conduct says that profanity is only a rule violation when there's no symbol to replace any letter in the word.
"The use of profanity without asterisks or similar non-letters replacing the majority of the letters in the word is a minor offense and is discouraged."
I assume, therefore, that this was an informal objection, rather than a formal one in your power as DART owner.
I promised you people that we'll think about the voting system, just give me some time to finish some other basic things before we jump into it.
Thanks. :)
Created:
I have a problem with keeping conduct as well. Like Thett points out, if conduct is sufficiently bad, it should warrant a loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I think that all people should have free medical care...I support single-payer health care....Contradiction?
I mean, people -- in a single-payer healthcare system -- aren't directly paying for the healthcare, they're paying through taxes, so it's technically free at the point of service, even if indirectly paid for. This tax structure of payment allows for different burdens to be placed on different people in terms of how much they pay for healthcare and therefore makes healthcare effectively free for a lot of poor and middle-class people. Moreover, some of this cost will be absorbed by the state, by money collected through means outside of taxes, e.g. taking on debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Albeit with a strict burden of proof, if it can be proven that a person levied a false sexual assault charge in court that person ought to be charged with a felony crime with a sentence of equal severity to that for sexual assault, and put on a sex offender blacklist upon release.
(1) How would that be proven? Accusations of sexual misconduct are positive claims -- how would you objectively disprove such claims? These accusations are rejected in court if there's no evidence; would you prosecute accusers of sexual assault without evidence? That would be bizarre, given that a huge number of these cases are true, just hard to uncover evidence.
(2) This seems to carry the obvious disadvantage of fewer people coming forward about these crimes -- and it seems to me that that's a larger impact than the impact of preventing false accusations, which, while real and awful, are also rare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Oh no, sorry, my post was poorly worded.
I'd support these changes in all cases of police brutality. The cases where this would have positive influence tends to be cases where police brutality is targeted at African-Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@bsh1
What's the logic behind this rule?
The use of profanity without asterisks or similar non-letters replacing the majority of the letters in the word is a minor offense and is discouraged.
It's not a big issue, and doesn't really affect me because I rarely swear, but it seems useless and I'd default to the harm principle of no rules without justification.
Created:
Posted in:
In cases where police officers kill African-American individuals who are innocent of crimes:
(1) The burden of proof on the prosecution in their criminal trials should be lowered to the balance of probabilities, rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
(2) The criterion for excessive force should be redefined to be any use of beyond what is reasonable given all the facts of the case, including the benefit of hindsight (e.g. whether the individual had a gun, not whether it was reasonable to believe he had a gun).
In addition, I support two specific reforms:
(1) Police officers should be required to wear body cameras, and, in these cases, turning off body cameras without sufficient justification should be an offense that leads to immediate termination of employment.
(2) There should be quotas for racial minority representation in police departments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Made the debate and new argument pages "full width". Hopefully it looks a bit better than before. Let me know what you guys think about it.
Ew no, revert to the original please, the original was nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Recommendation: Allow private messages to be directed at more than one person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
"DA" could be confusing as it's also the debate acronym for "disadvantage."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Thanks!
Any update on a "better arguments"-only option for judging?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Recommendation: create an option to make debates impossible to accept, and allow Instigators to ask interested people to comment if they're interested, as is common practice on DDO.
This would have two benefits:
(1) This allows Instigators to choose whom they give the debate to, which is useful to prevent debates from being accepted by trolls or people who're very likely to forfeit.
(2) This allows Instigators to start a debate, but take the required time to send the challenge over, viz. if I wanted to start a debate on a specific topic and see if people are interested, but I also don't have the time this week, and want to start the debate next week, this would give me the ability to advertise and still start the round next week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
How can there be more than 2 sex types?
Not mixing up with sexual orientation, no. Lots of people don't identify as male or female -- there are often people who identify as something that doesn't fit with that gender binary.
DDO has multiple gender options as well. So does Facebook.
Also I am not sure I understand the preferred pronoun, what's the purpose of it?
So that you know what pronoun to call a person by. Again, in case someone isn't sure of their gender identity, etc., you could call them singular they; there could be some confusion, too, if, for instance, there's a trans person who hasn't transitioned yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Add an "other" option for the category "sex" in the profile page. (Or add two more options than just "male" and "female"; specifically, "nonbinary" and "genderless.")
And add another category on the profile page, for "preferred pronoun," with the options "he," "she," and "they."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll try to make the topics balanced, but sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-5, -7.13
I'm probably not that leftist -- the questions are just too generic. In terms of personal political positions, at least in a US context, I'm probably to the right of Sanders, and slightly to the left of Clinton.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi. I’m announcing a DebateArt tournament.
The actual structure of the tournament (i.e. whether it’s round-robin or power-paired or double elimination or some other format) will be announced once I know the number of people who’ve signed up.
Otherwise, it’s pretty simple. There’ll be rounds, up until a final. Your opponents will be assigned by me. You’ll be given a limited amount of time to start the debate, so that the tournament runs on schedule. The winner won’t really get anything, other than bragging rights, I guess.
All debates in the tournament should:
1. Have a character limit for each speech ranging from 7,000 to 10,000 characters (not less, not more). Edit: characters include spaces.
2. Have either a 48 hour or a 72 hour time setting for each speech.
3. Have the basic rule of “no new arguments in the final round.”
4. Have either three or four rounds; not more, not less.
Judges should follow current DDO standards for RFDs.
Lastly, on the topics: Each round of the tournament will have a theme, and under that theme, I’ll announce three topics. You have to debate one of those three topics – I’ll try to make them as balanced and interesting as I can. The way topic selection works: each debater will, in a PM with me, be asked to “veto” one of the three topics – any topic that is vetoed won’t be debated by those two debaters (so there’ll be different vetoes for different debates in the same round). If the two debaters veto two different topics, the remaining topic will be the one selected; if the two debaters veto the same topic, then I’ll choose the topic randomly among the remaining two topics.
Debaters in the tournament can’t judge other debates in the tournament.
If you’re interested, please sign up here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@vagabond
It's cute how you're pretending that was the only reason for your hostility.
It's also bizarre.
I'd also note that if you bothered to read my post rather than skim through it and jump to conclusions, it would be clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@vagabond
(1) I didn't say most sex workers are trafficked, the person I quoted did. I didn't say that I agreed with every word of the person I quoted.
(2) Both of the things I said do have statistics backing them up. See, for instance, this. This as well. This evidence is certainly questionable -- and I'm definitely not sure about it; in fact, I support legalizing prostitution.
(3) You certainly seem to need a dose of epistemic humility. The fact that someone might oppose legalizing prostitution -- and, again, that's not me, I support legalization -- doesn't automatically mean they're saying things "their preacher told them to say"; the fact that you think that, if anything, is an indicator that you're the one who's full of nonsense. There's definitely empirical evidence on both sides of the debate; it's debatable. People like you, with your absolute certainty that you're right when no expert in the field has that level of certainty, and with being willing to call anyone who disagrees with you "full of nonsense," are what makes the left look bad.
(4) Even if you think I'm wrong, there's no need for hostility. Here's a few reasons why hostility is unproductive to conversation: (a) It prevents you from having an understanding of the other side. (b) It prevents you from being able to question your own opinion. (c) It alienates people who you might be able to find meaningful interaction with. I'm successfully alienated.
You've both (1) lost all credibility and (2) been unnecessarily hostile. I'm now being hostile because I've learned that I don't really give a sh!t if I alienate someone like you. Good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Also, on (2), that just sounds like government regulation of a private market. I mean a fully nationalized system, to avoid the problems of human trafficking mentioned above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
On (1), two reasons:
1. Legalization increases demand. Not enough people want to be sex workers, so the way to meet that demand is human trafficking.
2. A lot of technically licensed/legal sex workers are trafficking victims; however, police can't distinguish legal sex workers from trafficked ones, or legal pimps from ones that engage in trafficking, in a system where privately-run brothels are legal. FourTrouble explained this best in a DDO debate: "Most 'legal prostitutes' are trafficking victims. Unfortunately, police can't do anything about that, because police can't distinguish legal prostitutes from trafficking victims, or legal pimps from traffickers. Police also can't arrest trafficking victims, which is a huge problem, because most trafficking victims don't seek help. Pimps manipulate victims to think they're not victims, or to think they'll be killed if they seek help. So, the only effective way to rescue trafficking victims is arresting them for prostitution."
Created:
Posted in:
For people who support legalizing prostitution, I've got two questions:
(1) What are your thoughts on the idea that legalizing prostitution would increase sex trafficking?
(2) Do you think a system where all brothels/prostitution is state-run and regulated, i.e. nationalized, is workable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I think the deletion of "sources," "conduct," and "spelling/grammar" points would be pretty important for me.
I'd hate to debate on a site with exclusively a 7-point system; Instigators should have the option to only have a "better arguments" point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Could you please elaborate a little on this one? What's R4? But apart from that, if I got it right, it sounds interesting and we may come to something like this at some point.
Okay, so it's an option which an Instigator can choose to have if they want.
Essentially, assume there's four debate rounds, with Pro going first. Then, for the first three rounds, say with a character limit of 10,000 characters, the round structure would be:
Pro's Round 1 --> Con's Round 1 --> Pro's Round 2 --> Con's Round 2 --> Pro's Round 3 --> Con's Round 3
For Round 4 alone, the character limit would be halved to 5,000 characters, and Con's Round 4 would happen before Pro's Round 4. And the Round 4s ("R4s") would be exclusively for crystallization, with no rebuttal, counter-rebuttal, or arguments of any kind. This Round 4 would be called a "reply round" or a "reply speech."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Delete the "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points for votes.
Or, at the very least, create an option where Instigators can pick a "choose winner" voting system where only argument points are used.
Why?
(1) This option existed on DDO and virtually every well-established user who did debates frequently used that option.
(2) DArt should aim to, at least in some respect, mirror real-life debate, which doesn't have "conduct," "sources," or "spelling and grammar" points. Why should real-life debate be mirrored? Because (a) a lot of the best debaters on a debate site are likely to have done formal debate and creating an RFD system that's similar is more likely to help with retention and (b) nobody in real life thinks someone lost a debate because of their spelling and grammar; to the extent that things like conduct, sources, and basic coherence matters, they're already reflected in argument points.
(3) It's much easier to strategically vote on conduct/sources/spelling and grammar because it's much easier to create voting standards for argument points.
(4) Good judges typically vote only on argument points -- this means that the points of poorer judges are inflated. This is harmful because (a) each judge should only have one vote and (b) worse quality or strategic voters now have more sway than unbiased, strong judges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Two more suggestions:
1. Allow Instigators to set character limits on rounds.
2. An interesting feature Edeb8 had was the ability to include "reply speeches," which are basically R4s except where (i) Con goes first and then Pro goes and (ii) the character limit is half the character limit of the rest of the debate -- the purpose of those speeches is exclusively to crystallize without any rebuttal or defense or offense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I think it's true that African-American people, for instance, have statistically lower IQ than white people -- I wouldn't say that saying that is necessarily racist. The problem, I think, is that IQ is a deeply flawed measure of intelligence constructed in a way that privileges people with other social and economic privilege. See, for instance, this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
When is the Instigator going to be allowed to be Con?
Because this currently is tremendously restrictive in terms of setting "plan" topics for debates, in terms of the way the burden of proof functions, and in terms of how confusing the phrasing of resolutions is.
Created:
Posted in:
Other suggestions:
1. An activity feed for user profiles.
2. A set of big issues with users' opinions.
3. A system of voting on debates, involving RFDs, and the appointment of a voting moderator who's an experienced in debater in some formal format.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Allow people to see all forum posts made by a certain individual user.
For instance, on DDO, if I type debate.org/tejretics/forums, I can see the forum posts I've made on there. Would like something similar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I disagree about "changing the wording of the topic, so the Instigator is always Pro."
I think changing the wording of the topic into a negative might (1) confuse some people, as I've observed on DDO, and (2) prevents the ability of the instigator to decide that they want to be on Con, use strategy which is uniquely applicable to being on the Con as opposed to being on the Pro, e.g., a counterplan that Pro doesn't anticipate in part 1.
I think an alternative would be doing what Edeb8 does -- allowing the instigator to pick the side but making Pro always go first, whether they're the instigator or the contender.
Created: