Proposal to edit "Debate" section of Help Center

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 17
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I propose an edit to the “Debates” section of DART Help Center to clarify vague description currently in use. First, I recommend striking the line immediately beneath the section heading: **Outdated** since there is no total replacement that is apparently forthcoming. Mods should either make the “outdated” changes, or accept the text as is, pending this proposal.
 
This proposal will use the MS Word method of text editing, ie:
 
Text = unedited text remains as
 
Stricken text = strikethrough proposes stricken text
 
Added text = underline proposes added text.     [I apologize; my original document actually had strikethrough and underline of text, but it did not translate here. I suggest the actual text, if proposal is accepted by the Mods, and community, represented by italics here, be demonstrated strikethrough and underlined] I have numbered the paragraphs strictly for current purposes to assess the proposal. I do not suggest the policy have numbered paragraphs
 .
Proposed text of Help Center, Debates, The argumentation [based on above text methods]:
 
・The argumentation 
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.

6. When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into [the previous two italic words are strikethrough] automatically enters the next stage, voting.

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.

#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks for putting this work in. And again, sorry I did not spot it before.

This might be better in a Google doc (or even a link to a word doc), as strikesthroughs can't be seen on this forum.
#3
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
As Ragnar said, thanks for doing this; it makes you an active participant in the community and it's always good to support what you think is right. 

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.  
This is fine. 

"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." 

I don't see why if both parties agree on Waiving it shouldn't be allowed. I kinda abide by the Harm Principle here. 

Plus, Waiving first rounds can be useful if you create a debate in which the Contender has the BoP. If you're sold on an opinion but want someone else to convince you otherwise/want to rebut args instead of making them on a topic you care about, waiving the first round and letting your opponent argue is the way to go. 

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.

Why not just let debaters embed sources in bodies of text? 

Why would the argumentation phase be relevant? That would mean that providing Sources post-R3 would be fine, but providing them Post-R4 (supposing that the debate in question had four rounds) wouldn't be allowed. 

Meh, pulling up an external document isn't all that time consuming, at least for me. And you should probably look at the sources a debater gives in a debate regardless. 

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. 

I don't know why it needs to be ruled a loss automatically. Voters generally do a good job voting on FF debates and it gets their stats up as well. Maybe you could have a policy that if there's a certain period of time left, there were three forfeited rounds by one side and no one has voted, the debate will be ruled a win for the non-ffing participant. Like I said though voting is so consistent on debates like these that it shouldn't be a problem. It's usually how I vote anyways. 

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.
This is probably good to include in the Help Center

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.
I know we've disputed this before, but the point of arguments is to convince voters. Things like Voting Suggestions are just more direct. Invalid or misrepresentative Voting Suggestions are obviously unsupported arguments and are bad conduct. 

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.

"I win because my opponent forfeited" is of course dumb unless the rules that the Instigator set for the debate explicitly say that a forfeit = a loss beforehand.  However, not all dumb statements should be banned. 

Declaring victory is just a big way of convincing voters/emphasizing points. If declaring voting is unfair, then providing arguments is too IMO. And not all declarations of victory are done due to forfeit. 

Thanks again for being a member of DART who stands for what they think is right :) 


#4
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I started a document with open editing privileges for suggestions:

Currently it is the same as the live version in the help center, save for a tiny new section at the top explaining why people should use this site instead of another.

One resource that might be good to borrow from, is the old guide I wrote for DDO:
Topic's author
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
Thanks for adding the google.doc file. I've never used it, so I'm not sure if my edits were saved properly. When I went to save it, all I was offered was share, so I shared it with you. Hope that worked.
#6
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
It saves automatically as you type. As close to real time as these systems can hope to get without creating a ton of errors (as seen with Office.com stuff).
#7
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm editing things, and am into the argumentation section, which seems to contain most of your suggestions.

Thematically I would generally say this document is a new users guide. Some of your suggestions seem to be more aimed at voting policy, which we can change, but will be harder due to requiring a referendum. Such as whether users are allowed to waive any rounds, which if I type "my opponent forfeited, so I extend until they return" it's not particularly different than typing "my opponent forfeited, so I waive until they return"; , and even being concise could be considered waiving the remainder (actually I nearly lost a debate for doing just that).

Well I've got a work audition to get to, but I'll try to edit more another day.
#8
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I'm adding a FAQ section, which should allow clarifications without overly bloating the main areas for a casual new member.

Anyone have any feedback on a heavily revised How It Works section?
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.
The old one then becomes a new section for the stages of a debate.
#9
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Any feedback on the current draft? And yes, I know the Voting Policy goes hand in hand with it, so will also need to be refined.


Debates
An introduction

Why DebateArt.com?
There exist many websites for online disagreements. However, they are almost exclusively open forum based, without any method of quality control. They are often reduced to distorted echo chambers perfect for ideologues, and suboptimal for anyone hoping to learn or otherwise grow as a person.
 
DebateArt.com offers the unique value proposition of a safe environment for competitive one-vs-one text debates, wherein participants own up to the intellectual quality they are capable of presenting. The results of this are then judged by the community to determine a winner, using standards which mitigate partiality (see: Voting Policy).
 
 
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 or thesis.
  2. Details, which lists the various mechanical constraints such as the character limit and number of rounds.
  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 where judgements are cast based on what transpired within the arguments.
 
Stages of Debate
Each debate has 5 stages: Creation, Challenge, Argumentation, Voting, and Post Voting.
 
  • Creation
Debates may be instigated by any user in good standing.
 
The topic may be on almost anything, but ideally should be non-obtuse. If the topic is not the resolution to be argued, clarifications should be made in the full description.
 
The instigator may elect to be pro or con related to affirming or negating the resolution.
 
By default debates are open challenges for anyone to accept, but may be issued as a direct challenge toward a specific contender. Direct challenges remain hidden with locked comment sections until accepted, so should only be issued after gaining consensus as to the terms of the debate. If the challenge is declined, the debate will cease and automatically delete itself.
By default debates use the open voting system, in which anyone may vote. If opting for a judicial decision, specific judges are invited. Similar to a direct challenge, if any decline judging, the debate will cease and automatically delete itself.
 
  • Challenge
Debates created as open challenges are publicly visible, may be commented upon, and certain perimeters may be edited by the instigator.
 
During this phase, the instigator may delete the debate for any reason. If no one volunteers to be the contender, the debate will automatically delete itself after several days.
 
Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.
 
  • Argumentation
In this stage participants take turns publishing their arguments, to which they each have up to five opportunities as determined by the pre-selected number of rounds set at the time of creation.

Debaters can make any many contentions as the character limit allows (to include citing evidence to raise them from assertion to warranted argument), but should aim to be respectful to both the other debater and any potential voters. 
 
If no argument is published within the time limit (12-hours to 2-weeks), the debater will automatically forfeit the round, and presumably be penalized by voters.
 
Regarding sources, no particular citation format is required, but it is highly recommended for ease of voting, that all citations be listed within the body of text at the bottom of each relevant argumentation round. However, if pre-agreed by both debaters, it is acceptable to document sourcing references in the comment section. If not pre-agreed, voters may dismiss the sources in question and/or assign a conduct penalty for character limit violations.
 
When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage.
 
  • Voting
During this period, the community or the appointed judges select the debate’s winner. The criteria is discussed at length in the Voting Policy.

The winner need not be right, judges can and should vote against their own beliefs.

Votes may of course be challenged, but should be done respectfully.

After the winner has been selected, the debate goes into the next stage.
 
  • Post Voting
The debate is considered finished, at which point everyone involved is encouraged to discuss it in the comment section.


Debates Editing/Deletion
The instigator may edit most things until the challenge is accepted, save for the following: Voting system, Required rating, and Contender. They may also opt to delete the debate for any reason at this stage.
 
Otherwise with mutual permission from the instigator and contender, a moderator can edit the following until voting concludes: Title, Category, Rating Mode, Short Description, Full Description. Likewise, moderators can delete debates by mutual consent of the contestants, or occasionally for extenuating circumstances (usually involving blatant Code of Conduct violations).
 
No one can edit the content inside any rounds once they are posted.
 

Comments Editing/Deletion
Authors may edit or delete their comments for up to 30 minutes after posting. In order to edit or delete the comment, on the right side of it click on the pen or trash can icons respectively.
 
Moderators can edit or delete any comments at any time, but will respectfully only do so by request or to address grievous Code of Conduct violations. 
 
Links to specific comments are available, embedded in the comment number on the right side.


Votes Editing/Deletion
Unfortunately votes may not be directly edited; they must instead be deleted and re-cast with any changes. Alternatively, extensions or corrections may be posted in the comment section.
 
The author of a vote can delete it for the first 30 minutes after publishing. Afterward, they must request a moderator delete it for them.
 
Votes which fall short of the voting standard, are also eligible for deletion if reported.
 
Regarding Judicial Decision debates, the voting period ends once all judges have voted, so if there is only one, there is no opportunity for point corrections.


Frequently Asked Questions
 
Q: What does it mean to be a user “in good standing”?
A: As per the Code of Conduct, a user may lose the privilege to create debates and/or accept challenges (referenced as “participation” in the notifications) if abused. Debates in wanton violation of that, are eligible for summary deletion.
 
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.
 
Q: Are special rules binding?
A: That is up to voter discretion. Usually breaking them merits a conduct penalty, but a voter may consider the rules themselves to be in bad faith to the spirit of debating, so dismiss out of hand.
 
Q: May a vote ever consider things from outside the arguments?
A: Generally no, but if a voter properly justifies it there are exceptions; such as if a spectator identifies plagiarism. Further, by voting they are of course asked to interpret the debate, which cannot occur in a pure vacuum free of even their own language. Still, a vote clearly based upon their bias without fair weighting, is subject to deletion.
 
Q: Can more rounds be added to a debate?
A: Before the debate reaches the argumentation phase, yes. Afterward, no.
 
Q: Can I withhold my arguments until the final round, to prevent the other side from having a chance to respond?
A: Technically you can, but this well known cheat is called a “final round blitzkrieg,” which is universally despised by voters; who will most likely dismiss it with prejudice.
 
Q: May I concede a debate?
A: Yes. Ideally you should still refrain from forfeiting, as it’s very rude.
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Why is it strongly encouraged to play devil's advocate?

Nice draft btw.
#11
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
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.
I am with RM. Why are we encouraged to argue a position that I don't hold? This will decrease the overall quality for a bit knowing that most of the users aren't master twisty minds.
#12
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I mean RM is probably extremely good playing devil's advocate, but that couldn't be said about me. Not to be self-depreciating but on my User-2006 account, I actually lost some because it ended up something I didn't hold and then I got smashed by my opponent who I now agree with.
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
I disagree that waiving an argument round is a voting function. No, it is clearly an action taken during the debate argument phase, and the debate argument phase already says the the number of arguments [which can be presentation of argument, rebuttal, defense or conclusion] equal the number of rounds, which means to me that the number of arguments would not equal the number of rounds if there was a waived round, but a few disagree with me, so I think the concept needs to have clear definition in the argumenmt phase that waiving a round shall not be done.
#14
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@Intelligence_06
Why is it strongly encouraged to play devil's advocate?
Well it’s arguably the best way to learn why people have those opposing viewpoints. 😉

I tossed that in there to encourage people to seek more personal growth, via considering the other side on issues. Plus I've seen numerous times when people were confused by it. It could of course be worded in about a hundred different ways. How does the following sound?

Q: May I play devil’s advocate for a position I’m against?
A: Yes. Sometimes doing this is encouraged, as it’s a great way to come to understand the merit of differing viewpoints.


I can't remember the name for the term, but in Jewish philosophy there's a concept for dispute resolution which involves learning the other side so well that you can explain it to them and have them agree that is their stance, and via versa, before trying to settle whatever the issues are.
#15
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
 I think the concept needs to have clear definition in the argumenmt phase that waiving a round shall not be done.
I understand that you believe waiving is poor conduct on level with forfeitures.

There are two problems:
  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.
If a referendum concludes that waived rounds are horrible conduct, then a short paragraph should be added to the debate information page (in addition to the voting policy page).
Topic's author
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Then under the Debate/Argumentation policy in the Help Center, what is your interpretation of this phrase: "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?" To me, this says if there are x-number of rounds in a debate, determined by the instigator,  there better be x-number of arguments, and not one less due to waive.  This forbids waived rounds, yet they are allowed. If my interpretation is not corect, what does this policy say?
#17
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
That is a descriptive document under the help category, as opposed to a policy document. While I'm happy to update it and ensure it aligns with any policy, and even do referendums for policy refinements and clarifications, it doesn't make that document binding. Plus it self identifies itself as "outdated."

Technically the system forces people to have twice as many arguments as there are rounds. The system also forces people to not post arguments if they fail to do so in time, which again causes that statement to be false.

Plus, does anywhere in the document declare what combination of characters and letters must be presented inside someone's argument? Plus by posting "waive" someone is posting something as their argument. It does not advance their case, but no rule specifies the percentage of the character limit they must use (you're welcome to propose such a rule).

The fact is people have opportunities to post arguments related to the resolution. I've both proposed an update to make the document not outdated anymore, and offered a referendum question to further address the matter.