Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
More on Offense, defense, and impacts
(1) Offense/Defense
Offense is an affirmative reason to vote for a particular side. If the topic were: Resolved: All schools should adopt merit pay, an "offensive" argument would be that merit pay would improve educational quality in our nation's schools.
Defense is an argument that merely mitigates the reasons that you would vote for a particular side; it is not an independent reason to vote for your own side. On the same topic as above, an argument that "the test score gains in schools that implemented merit pay are due to other factors" would be defensive. Even if the argument is 100% true, at most is proves that Pro was not entirely correct in Pro's assertion that merit pay improves test scores. But it's not a reason that merit pay is *bad.* For Con, "offensive" arguments are reasons merit pay is bad, e.g. that it would discourage people from becoming teachers.
(2) Links and impacts
A proper offensive argument has a "link" and an "impact." A "link" is the explanation of the argument itself and how it ties into the resolution. So for example, on merit pay, Pro's link is that studies show that schools that adopted merit pay improved their test scores by 10%.
The impact is why the "link" or argument constitutes a reason to vote Pro or Con. In the above example, the "impact" would be that implementing merit pay across the nation would improve test scores by 10%. Pro could add to this impact further by finding a study that said if we improved our test scores by 10%, it could add $1 trillion per year to our economy because would could have more math and science majors, who could take important tech jobs.
So the "impact" to Pro's argument that merit pay improves test scores is that we could add $1 trillion per year to the economy.
Con might claim that merit pay would discourage people from becoming teachers. The link is that people like job security, and merit pay systems abolish tenure. The impact is that if fewer people become teachers, we will have a teacher shortage. Con could expand on this impact by claiming that a teacher shortage would reduce student performance because it would increase class sizes.
(3) Impact Calculus
Let's say the topic is "Resolved: North Korea is a greater threat to the US than Iran."
Pro runs that North Korea could attack South Korea at any time, and such a war would draw the US into it. Stratfor estimates show that such a war would cost 400,000 lives (that's the impact).
Con runs that Iran can cut off the Straight of Hormuz, a major oil route. Iran is building the military capabilities to do so and has threatened to do so in the past (the link). If Iran did so, it would cost the US approximately $250 million in lost trade and higher oil prices (the impact).
At the end of the debate, the judge is supposed to weigh: (a) the probability and (b) the magnitude of all the impacts.
Probably ties into (1) how persuasively it was argued and (2) how good the rebuttals are. The opponent can show that the impact is highly improbable by using good rebuttal responses.
The judges are also supposed to weigh the magnitude. Assuming the probabilities were about even as to North Korea provoking a war with South Korea and Iran cutting off the Straight of Hormuz using their navy, then the judge weighs which is more important: 400,000 lost lives in a war on the Korean Peninsula or $250 million.
In this case, Pro would probably win because 400,000 lives outweighs $250 million.
That's impacts and impact calculus in a nutshell.
Created:
Posted in:
(8) Awarding arguments, sources, conduct, or S&G for impermissible reasons
Arguments. The point is "more convincing arguments." Saying that one side had a longer argument or a better structured argument is not a valid reason for awarding the argument point. The point should be awarded for substance, not structure.
Sources. Sources should only be awarded because one side had better quality sources. Saying that one side had more sources is never going to be sufficient. If one side had so few sources that it constituted inadequate source support, then you can consider quantity. But normally, you need to show that one side had sources of superior quality.
Spelling and grammar. You need to explain with some specificity what was so bad about one side's grammar or spelling. And you should only be awarding the point if the errors were so bad that they hurt readability. A single spelling error is not a sufficient reason to award the point.
Conduct. The violation needs to be relatively serious. You can't award conduct just because one debater was slightly nicer. And you shouldn't use conduct to double vote (such as by awarding conduct because one side used a logical fallacy, which should be reflected under the argument point vote).
Created:
Posted in:
What makes an RFD so bad that it will be removed by a moderator?
There are a few general things that will get your vote removed:
(1) Failing to explain every single point you award.
If you award conduct and argument points and explain why you awarded arguments, but fail to explain why you awarded conduct, your vote will be removed.
(2) Failing to explain *why* you awarded a point
This is slightly different than #1. You may have mentioned every single point category you awarded in your RFD, but you failed to explain why you awarded that point. If you say, "Con had much better arguments," you are merely reciting that Con had better arguments; you have failed to explain why Con had better arguments. An RFD is meant to give valuable feedback to the debaters, so you need to explain why you awarded a particular point.
(3) Failing to be specific enough
If your RFD could be copy-pasted into any debate and it would still make sense, you are not being specific enough. If you say, "Con had better arguments because Pro used some straw man arguments, Con didn't have very good rebuttals, and Pro had a strong case," then you are being too generic in your RFD. You need to explain which of Pro's arguments were straw men and why these arguments were important in the debate, such that Pro losing those arguments cost Pro the debate. You need to explain why Con's rebuttals were bad, and which of Pro's arguments were insufficiently refuted, and why those arguments swayed you to Pro's side. And you need to explain which arguments in Pro's case were strong, and why those arguments convinced you to vote Pro.
(4) Voting based on personal bias
If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed. Debate is an intellectual exercise. You are supposed to vote for the side that performed better in the debate, not the side you happened to agree with beforehand. To do this, you are supposed to be a tabula rasa judge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate." You are supposed to evaluate the debate from the perspective of an unbiased third party who has no opinion about the topic and has no prior knowledge about the subject matter of the debate. Vote the way that a reasonable non-biased third party would vote. So if your RFD references that you found one side more persuasive because you were already predisposed to believe that side, your RFD will be removed because you are not giving the debater whose side you already disagreed with a fair chance in the debate.
Competitive debate in real life is switch-side debate, meaning the debaters have to advocate on both sides of the topic. So debates will often have to advocate for a position they disagree with. It's unfair to penalize someone merely because they happened to be taking a position in a debate that you already disagreed with.
(5) Piggybacking off someone else's RFD
It is impermissible to reference someone else's RFD as the reason you voted. For example, you can't say, "I voted Con for basically the reasons in Ragnar's RFD." This is impermissible because: (a) you have to do your own work; your obligation is to provide independent and helpful feedback to the debaters, and (b) you are supposed to form your decision about the outcome of the debate without reading other people's RFDs. You can read other RFDs after you have already reached a decision, but not before. You should only be reading the debate before making a decision -- you should not read comments, RFDs, or anything else that might sway you. So referencing someone else's RFD in your own RFD leads to the inference that you were improperly persuaded by someone else's RFD, which is unfair because if you vote Pro, it shouldn't be because of the way someone else summed up Pro's position in their RFD. It can only be based on things Pro said.
(6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate
You're only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn't be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.
(7) Your RFD just doesn't make sense, says something that is objectively false, contradicts itself, or you voted for the wrong side
This should be self-explanatory. If your RFD's reason for voting just doesn't make any sense, claims that Pro or Con did something that they did not actually do, or says that Pro had better arguments but you accidentally voted Con, your vote will be removed.
Created:
Posted in:
Offense and defense
Unlike football, for debate the best offense is not a good defense. The best and only offense is a good offense.
An offensive argument is a reason to vote for your side. A defensive argument is one that mitigates your opponent's case. For example, imagine the topic: the US should adopt an assault weapons ban. You are Con. An offensive argument would be that assault weapons empirically act as a crime deterrent, so banning assault weapons would increase crime. A defensive argument would be that past assault weapons bans have failed to significantly reduce crime. The former argument is a reason that an assault weapons ban is bad. The latter argument is merely a reason that an assault weapons is not as good as Pro might claim.
Voters should only be voting for offensive arguments. Defensive arguments, on their own, cannot logically form a basis for decision because they only mitigate the opponent's case. They don't provide an actual reason to vote for a particular side.
Impact analysis
A good offensive argument has a link and an impact. A link is the explanation of how the argument relates to the resolution. An impact is the reason to vote for your side. Take, for example, the topic: Iran poses a greater threat to the United States than North Korea. You are Pro. You run an argument about Iran cutting off the Strait of Hormuz. The link is that Iran has the military capability to cut off all access to the Strait of Hormuz and has threatened to so in the past. The impact is that if Iran cut off the Strait of Hormuz, the US would lose access to Middle Eastern oil, which would cause a large uptick in oil prices.
In contrast, Con argues that North Korea might launch nuclear weapons at the United States. The link is that North Korea has operational nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against the United States in the past. The impact is that a nuclear explosion in Los Angeles would kill 10 million Americans.
As the judge, you have to weigh Pro's Strait of Hormuz argument against Con's nuclear attack argument. For impact analysis, you are supposed to consider probability and magnitude. Probability is the likelihood that the impact will happen. Magnitude is the total size of the impact. A nuclear attack has a greater magnitude because 10 million lives is a much bigger impact than higher oil prices. However, given that the United States would retaliate against North Korea using nuclear weapons, North Korea would likely be deterred from launching a nuclear attack, so the probability of this impact is low. In contrast, Iran is far more likely to cut off the Strait of Hormuz given that the current Revolutionary Government has shown a willingness to resort to extreme tactics, such as when it took over the United States embassy in Iran. So the judge could still vote Pro, even though the magnitude of the impacts are smaller, because the probability of Iran harming the US by cutting off the Strait of Hormuz is much higher.
A good RFD should engage in impact analysis and consider both probability and magnitude.
If you cannot fit your RFD within the 1,000 character limit, say "RFD in comments," and leave your RFD in the comments section of the debate.
[A more extensive explanation of offense/defense and impact analysis can be found in post 4]
Created:
Posted in:
Voting Tabula Rasa
There is a right and a wrong way to judge a debate. The wrong way to decide which side was more convincing is to ask merely: "which side was more convincing to me?" The right way to decide which side was more convincing is to ask: which side's arguments would be more convincing to a reasonable third party who knows nothing about the topic and has no opinion on it.
The latter approach is referred to as tabula rasa judging. Tabula rasa is Latin for "blank slate." In the law, when we ask how a "reasonable person" would judge something, we are referring to an "objective standard." The standard for police conduct when they conduct searches is whether a reasonable police officer would believe there is probable cause to conduct a search. In contrast, a subjective standard would ask what that *particular* police officer was actually thinking. We adopt objective standards to remove bias.
If you want to judge a debate objectively, rather than subjectively, you have to adopt a tabula rasa approach. Otherwise, your personal opinion will inherently influence which side you find more convincing. You are already predisposed to agree with a certain side. That sides arguments sound more convincing to you because you have heard those arguments before. And we have a natural familiarity bias. We prefer things we have seen before, e.g. we like people more merely by interacting with them more regularly. We like products more merely by being exposed to them more (something that advertisers exploit). If you've seen an argument twenty times before and find it convincing in the past, you will treat it as *more* convincing than if you had seen if for the first time. The way to eliminate bias is to (1) be aware of this phenomenon (studies show that being aware of the concept of implicit bias actually reduces implicit bias), and (2) pretend that you are hearing this argument for the first time.
A tabula rasa approach lets you recognize when a more skilled debater is winning by making better arguments, even though you still agree with the less skilled debater's side. For example, I might think that the death penalty is bad because it is too costly, but imagine a not-so-great debater who argues that the death penalty is costly. His opponent seriously calls that into question, such as by proving that by reducing habeas appeals, we can save a lot of money. The not-so-great debater fails to respond. I know that without any knowledge about the feasibility or desirability of abolishing habeas, I would find this argument convincing, at least enough to negate the not-so-great debater's BOP of establishing that the death penalty is inherently costly. So I can vote for the better debater in this scenario under a tabula rasa framework, even though I still disagree with him and have not personally changed my mind on the issue.
How can you tell if an RFD is being tabula rasa or not? RFDs that explain their decision based on BOP and insufficient rebuttals to certain points are clearly applying tabula rasa. RFDs that simply said "Pro was more convincing" without explanation or that conclude merely with, "After reading the debate, I just found myself agreeing with Pro more," are inherently based on a subjective evaluation model.
In your RFDs, at least endeavor to be tabula rasa. No one can apply it perfectly. No one can be completely free from bias. Even when apply an "objective" evaluation model. [That's also the problem with objective morality: it becomes subjective through its application by humans]. But an objective *analytical system* is still preferable to a subjective one, even if the result is not perfectly objective. Subjective evaluation models will always lead to entirely subjective decisions. Objective evaluation models are more likely to lead to objective decisions (where an objective decision is one on which all *reasonable* minds would agree).
You'll notice that there are some debaters, e.g. currently on the front page, where one debater wins the bulk of the votes, but the other debater still gets *some* votes. There are sometimes debates where one side is simply outclassed, and you can read the RFDs that still vote for the outclassed side to see obvious examples of subjective evaluation models in action. Those RFDs invariably come from people with establishable pre-existing biases on the topic and either fail to articulate argument or BOP-specific reasons for voting or fail to give any credence to one side's arguments and merely list all the things they liked from the other side. Subjective RFDs often do this: they say "omg, all these arguments from the side I agreed with beforehand were so good, e.g. Pro referred to John Lott who is the God of gun statistics and can never be wrong about anything." If you keep a sharp eye out, it becomes really easy to see votes that are based on a subjective analysis.
So keep your eye out. Force yourself to be tabula rasa. And keep up the good work (because anyone who cares enough to read my voting advice is doing good work).
Stay classy San Francisco.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yeah, I mean, if that's what you want to do, that's better, and I don't think that would trigger moderation action. I am going to keep the thread read-only for at least the next two hours, though. Again, a nice cool down. As long as your not posting identical messages within a few minutes of each other, I don't have a big problem with it. Just, as I said, there's still a ceiling to how much is alright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I posted a message about it in the thread. It won't be read-only for long, hopefully. But posting hundreds of identical messages over and over again is pretty much the definition of spamming. I don't mind nonsense threads where people post silly or repetitive messages, but there's always an upper limit of acceptability on that kind of activity, too.
Created:
Posted in:
I am going to temporarily lock this thread. Just to let it cool down. The spamming that's going on is a bit much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I think pulling moderation on them is a greater deterrent for them than moderating them. Not moderating them means that users have to put up with bad votes, which is a powerful reason not to have those debates in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, but only if you approach being it in with the right mindset. For me, a handful moments I've had in nature are the closest I've ever gotten to feeling truly close to something more than myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I do delete posts, but very rarely. I haven't deleted any forum posts in--if memory serves--more than two months. And I do not allow call out threads; they are locked for precisely that reason.
Created:
Posted in:
So, I don't have an issue with you making a poll about who believes you're Type1 or not. What I do have an issue with is you using the pretense of having a poll to create what is effectively a call out thread against another user. This is the second time I will have locked one of your threads for being a call out/fighting words thread. Please desist from making such threads. You are free to create a "clean" version of this if you wish--but confine the topic of the thread to the poll itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
There are some good reasons for the rule, though I realize it's not ideal. Reasons include the increased subjectivity of the votes involved making them harder to moderate fairly, keeping the workload of reports manageable for moderation, and the reduced "seriousness" of the debates in question. We try to be upfront to debaters (via the COC and our decision notices) about the fact that troll debates are not moderated, so that they are aware of the risks that come with having such debates.
Created:
Posted in:
For anyone who is currently unsatisfied with moderation, it would be best to provide specific, constructive suggestions for improvement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Troll debates are not moderated. It's a risk you run when deciding to have those kinds of debates, but hopefully there are enough other votes to counterbalance any problematic votes which might be cast.
Created:
Posted in:
Aloha, DART!
It has now been 7 months since Virt and I were first appointed as DART's moderators by Mike. During that time, moderation has handled countless reports, helped numerous users address various problems, and implemented several changes based on usership feedback.
Given that we are now more than halfway through our first year volunteering as moderators for DART, I thought it would be appropriate to pause to allow the community to provide feedback on moderation. Virt and I value the usership's input, which is one reason why we implemented the MEEP process and why we try to engage with individual users who express concerns.
Moderation always tries to achieve the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and consistency possible. While we are not perfect, and while no code of conduct is perfect, we are striving every day towards excellence in our moderation of DART.
Please use this this thread to express any thoughts, concerns, or questions you have with regard to site moderation. Feel free to address queries to any of the moderators. This is not the ideal thread to talk about technical issues, as that is outside of moderation's purview. For the next 3 days or so, we will attempt to answer your questions and will weigh any potential changes to policy implicated by your concerns. Consider this your opportunity to provide us a report card on our first 7 months in office. After three days, the thread will be locked.
Thank you. We look forward to a productive discussion.
- Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Alright. Locking this thread.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Did you even click the link in the OP?
Created:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
A FAQ would probably be a nice resource.
There already is an FAQ...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
But but who will vote all the shite debates now?
Ram is still free to vote, he just can't moderate his own votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
For me, it's more impressionistic. If we, as mods, feel overwhelmed, that's probably our cue that we need help. If we are feeling like we're keeping up with things pretty well, then we're probably fine. Plus, there are a finite and small number of users I would actually feel confident in appointing, which puts an upward limit on the number of mods we could have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes. He went through a vetting process. First, Virt and I discussed, from our observations, potential candidates. When we reached out to Ram, we made it clear that his appointment was contingent on an interview process whereby he rendered mock-decisions on a variety of real RFDs. Having been convinced of his ability by that interview process, we decided to appoint him and got Mike's okay to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
yeah i'm not reading that long ass google doc lmao
Lol. That's totally up to you.
Created:
Posted in:
Aloha, DART!
First, Ramshutu has been appointed as an Assistant Voting Moderator. His appointment will be officially effectuated at 8:00pm, EST, on 5/8/2019 (today). He will now have the power to render moderation decisions on votes cast on debates, with oversight from myself and Virtuoso. His powers are confined to vote moderation, and he does not have authority to act for moderation in other moderation remits. I, Virt, and Mike are all excited to have him on board, and to again have a member of the moderation team dedicated to handling votes. Welcome!
Second, an official Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations has been published. This document includes various moderation policies which are either too insignificant to include in the COC, are tangential to the COC, or both. It is my hope that this document will be instructive for both users and moderators.
Please feel free to use this thread to comment on either of this topics. This thread will be locked in 48 hours. Thank you.
-Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
1) Create another forum category about site functionality which only moderators and admins are allowed to create topics but can choose whether or not they want users to comment on the forums.
I feel like that would run into a similar problem, where we start cluttering the forum. But, this is a solution I've considered, and I haven't ruled it out yet. It is one that would require Mike's okay and help, but I'm still not sold on it.
2) Remove existing pin threads. First example of mine to remove is the Hall of Fame one. Have another separate page dedicated to the Hall of Fame instead of being part of the forum site. This would also allow more creativity with how you want to represent it instead of simply typing out who did what. You can have pictures of their profile. Their best accomplishments in a bright colour and in a less bright colour less notable accomplishments that still deserve to be mentioned. I am sure you have already removed the changelog if I am not mistaken. So you would have 3 pinned threads you can use to separate the topics.
I am hoping to streamline the pinned threads, and have already unpinned at least one (as you noticed). I think this idea is promising, but, again, I am not sold and it would require Mike's okay and help. It's something to ruminate on, for sure, though.
Created:
-->
@Barney
- The index should probably have links
Good point. I'll add those.
- I'd also probably make one post per numbered item (on that, some might be combined, like Site and Debate Jargon being two sub-points under a singular Jargon heading).
I've tried to keep it two issues to one post. Do you feel that's cluttered?
- If possible, get rid of the 236 days later, it might somehow be confusing to new members (this could require remaking the thread, and doing like ten placeholder posts in case they become needed...).
I already asked Mike. Sadly, it's not technically feasible.
Yeah. Transferring them to google docs might be worth doing...
- I'd personally rather not see any links to DDO forums.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Wrick-It-Ralph
This is not an issue related to the new member's thread, specifically. It's a technical issue, which is best referred to Mike (hence, my tagging him on this post). This applies to several of your suggestions above.The notification delete system is kind of confusing. Especially for a new member. The only real issue with it is that there doesn't seem to be a way to delete individual notifications so that one can save the ones they haven't answered yet. Other than that, it works just fine.
I do like the idea of providing templates of some sort for new voters, and that is something I can consider adding. Are you referring to resolution templates, rules templates, or case templates?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So, I totally agree that having it all in one place can be kind of daunting. The problem is that having a bunch of pinned threads for each of those topics would clutter the main forum excessively. I am hoping to reduce the number of pinned threads, not increase them. As for DART vs. DA, I don't think that's particularly key for helping orient new users to the site.
Created:
Aloha, DART!
So, I have recently been working on revamping the About DART: Resources for New Members thread. It is still a work in progress, and I think it always will be. But I am interested in your thoughts on potential edits, deletions, and/or additions which could improve the content there.
Also, as you might be able to tell from reading the changes I made to the thread, some of the MEEP'd policies will, instead of being added to the COC, be included in a new "Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations" google document. This document will be a combination of moderation rulings and MEEP'd policies which are not substantial enough to merit being located in the COC. This will help keep the COC to a readable length. I hope to publish this document sometime in the coming weeks.
That's all. Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions!
Created:
Posted in:
X. Conclusion
I hope this orientation to the site has been helpful. Please feel welcome to introduce yourself to the site! If you still have any questions and concerns, please feel free to reach out to any member of the Site Administration or to any other user you trust. And, again, welcome to DebateArt.com! I want you to enjoy your time here and I wish you all the best as you become a member of this awesome community!
Created:
Posted in:
VIII. Voter Resources
This section provides some very generic advice for debating on DART. Not all of this advice is universally applicable, and exceptions do exist. More detailed information in the links below and, especially, in the "DART Rules and Code of Conduct" and "Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations" documents.
In order to vote well, a voter must have thoroughly and careful read the debate, and must feel as if they comprehend most of what is going on in the debate itself. Voters should not take into account things outside of the debate, including their own opinions on the topic, their own opinions of the arguments present, other votes or RFDs, and drama elsewhere on the site.
Voters should ask themselves who won each of the key arguments in the debate, and why. Who put forward the most compelling logic, and why was that logic compelling? Once a voter knows who won each of the key arguments in the debate--and different debaters may have won different arguments--then the voter must ask, based on who won each of these arguments, who won the overall debate.
To determine who won the overall debate, the voter must engage in a process called "weighing." Weighing involves looking at the relative importance of each of the arguments won, and the extent to which each argument was won by a debater. Winning an important argument means more than winning an unimportant argument, and winning an argument which is mitigated to some extent by an opponent means less than winning an unmitigated argument of identical importance.
After weighing, the voter should have a general idea of who won the debate based on the heft of the arguments they're carrying. The winning debater is the debater whose arguments are carrying greater weight. Keep in mind, explaining as much of your reasoning as possible in your RFD (reason for decision) will be critical in ensuring that your vote passes moderation evaluation.
IX. Moderation and Site Information
Moderation on this site is responsible for voting and conduct, namely, for ensuring that votes cast are sufficient and that conduct across the site conforms with the site's minimum standards. Moderation attempts to be as hands-off as possible while ensuring that the site rules are enforced according to their letter and their spirit. Moderation has the power to ban users from the site, but exercises this power only as an issue of last resort, after a user's accumulation of numerous infractions, or in the face of extreme transgressions of site policy (e.g. doxxing).
Moderation usually only takes action against that conduct or those votes which are reported. If potential misconduct or potentially insufficient votes are not brought to moderation's attention, they will not be dealt with. Moderation takes reports very seriously, and every report is reviewed by a real human being to ensure full compliance with site rules. Moderation is under no obligation to inform reporting users what became of their report, and this is generally not done.
Moderation attempts to address every report within 72 hours of it being made, though we will address urgent problems or concerns as soon as we encounter them. We believe we have a duty to be as prompt, fair, efficient, and transparent as possible, and we strive everyday to meet those standards. Moderation also has a duty to take action to protect users against harassment, credible threats, and life-threatening emergencies when moderation is aware of those issues and is able to take action to address them.
If you have any questions, always feel free to reach out to a moderator--we don't bite! We are generally good points of contact for any DART-related queries you might have.
Created:
Posted in:
VI. Debating
This section provides some very generic advice for debating on DART. Not all of this advice is universally applicable, and exceptions do exist. More detailed information, including links to sample debates, can be found in the Official Guide to Debating and Tournaments below.
Debating typically begins in the first round of the debate. The rules of the debate, as well as the exact topic or resolution up for debate, should be made clear in the debate's full description or title. In order to avoid accusations of plagiarism or of evidence fabrication or misrepresentation, debaters should cite sources in the debate itself. This can be done by either posting or embedding the link in the debate.
Clear formatting and readability are also important for voters; voters are more likely to vote on debates which they find readable and are also more likely to understand those debates better. Using headings and subheadings where appropriate, avoiding overly cluttered or dynamic structures and presentations, and writing clearly and concisely will help. Always proofread.
It is considered good etiquette to avoid posting or linking to pictures of text in order to circumvent the character limits imposed on the debate. It also important to avoid using ad hominem arguments against your opponent and to avoid expanding the debate into the comments section either by continuing the arguments there or by posting sources for the debate there.
For more information about debate and debating, as well as ideas for debate topics, consult these links:
Mafia is a game which is often played in the games forum of the site. All are free to participate (typically after going through a beginners' series). To explain a bit more about the game, in mafia there are usually two teams: the town and the mafia. The town group is the largest, but town players are not told the identities of other town players (townies). Mafia is the smallest group, but they typically know each other's identities and can communicate with each other.
The game is played in cycles, and each cycle is divided into two phases--a Day Phase and a Night Phase. In the day phase, players talk publicly about the game in an effort to determine who among them is mafia. Players may choose to eliminate ("lynch") a player by public vote during the DP. Town's goal is to remove all mafia from the game. In the night phase, mafia collectively decides on a townie to kill in an effort to become the majority of living players in the game.
While the game is more complex than this brief description can explain, it is a highly enjoyable activity and one I can personally recommend. If you're interested in mafia, please check out the games forum!
For more information about mafia and its rules and gameplay consult these links:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would it still be a western values if every single person in the west does not hold the same values?
Yes. As I said, the terms are stereotypes. They have a grain of truth to them, but lack nuance and qualification. They are useful schemas in understanding some important differences in culture, but their explanatory value is limited by their generality, imprecision, and non-exhaustive nature.
Created:
Posted in:
Snowy Owls. But birds are, in general, amazing creatures. I should give some honorable mentions to:
- Canada Geese
- Kiwis
- Emus
- Kakapos
- Osprey
- Doves
- Shoebill Storks
- Greater Sage Grouses
- Barn Owls
- Red-bellied Woodpeckers
- Cardinals
- Ducks
- Cockatoos
- Hummingbirds
- Cranes
- Parakeets
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think the phrase "Western Values" is typically associated with classic liberalism. Freedom, autonomy, and individualism are typically central. "Western Values" is situated in dialogic opposition to "Oriental Values" and "Indigenous Values." The former typically implicates consensus, cooperation, and community/family, and the latter typically implicates spirituality, reciprocity, and oneness (with nature). "Western Values" can be understood as promoting a kind of free-for-all, with ad hoc associations forming and dissolving dynamically as desired. "Oriental Values" are, conversely, best conceived of as promoting a hierarchical system, and "Indigenous Values" are best understood as promoting a cyclical system which is almost karmic in the way it constructs relationships. These are, of course, stereotypes and therefore are only true in a very loose sense. Trying to offer a definitive definition of any of these terms is an entirely fruitless task, as any such effort would need to be not only exhaustive but unambiguous.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Ramshutu
Fabulous parties can't happen without fabulous outfits. I don't even have my summer wardrobe ready yet! Do you realize how behind that puts me?! I'd spend the money on buying some nice floral rompers, some statement shirts, and printed shorts. Matching underwear would be a bonus, too.
(Also, no ads please...unless they feature shirtless guys with washboard abs.)
Created:
Posted in:
Also, please stop creating annoyingly long titles for threads only you care about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The results of the MEEP are not in force yet, but will be soon. That aside, it clearly meets the standard that the MEEP approved. It is very clearly facetious, insofar as that implies it is treating a serious issue flippantly, and is thus a troll debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
His right to defend himself exists only within the context of the site rules. By using this site, he consents to abide by those rules, and to be punished for violating them. He has received a 3-month temp ban as a kind of penultimate warning, and I hope, if he returns, that he can bring his actions into compliance with the site's code of conduct. It's not particularly hard to refrain from accusing other users of being butt-licking pedophiles.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Users have an expectation of privacy in any non-public communications they have. Whatever the name of the system, it would not be appropriate to permit arbitrary revelation of the messages exchanged therein.
I have reviewed the evidence you presented. I found that it did not rise to the standard needed to render a verdict on the issue. If you have additional evidence, or if more arises, I am always willing to consider it. But, in order to take action, moderation must be convinced that no other reasonable explanation exists for any evidence presented in furtherance of any multi-accounting allegations. This statement should not be construed as expressing an opinion on the evidence presented except insofar as moderation found that evidence did not to rise to the necessary standard needed to reach an actionable conclusion.
Created: