Platform development

I think it's an interesting idea, but it seems a bit difficult to implement maybe.

I think it's an interesting idea, but it seems a bit difficult to implement maybe.

If there was a "self-moderated" debate option, would you participate in a "self-moderated" debate with me?

"You're a dumb lefty."

"You're a dumb conservative."

"You're a dumb goddist."

"You're a dumb nihilist."

It could work if self-moderating debates were unrated or in their own rating system,  but those solutions seem clunky to me.

Save for that ranking system (N/received/granted), this idea can easily be handled with electing a judge to just vote based on the scores they gave each other. Which would be a fine way to test it out.

I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.

By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".

At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.

This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent).

Let me ask: this proposition you offer, do you find it more preferable than judge voting?

I find it vastly superior to judged voting.

I realized at some point, that skewering your friends and family members with incisive logic is shockingly naive rhetoric.

In "real-life" you often need a more subtle debate technique that aims to win your most hardened opponent over to your side.

Judged debates are the polar opposite of "productive negotiations" and they promote the idea that clever insults and cheap rules wonking always win the day.

I believe this fundamental misunderstanding of the ultimate goal of dialogue is contributing to the toxic environment we find ourselves embroiled in.

For example,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&feature=youtu.be&t=55

Judge voting, in my opinion, serves the same function as a mediation. Two parties in dispute defer their sought resolution to the decision of a third party. Ideally, this third party would sustain the trust and respect of both parties involved. Would that necessarily lead to clever insults and cheap rules wonking?

With that said, I'm all for rooting out the toxicity of the debating and voting processes. If it's ever subject to a referendum, I'll take no issue supporting your proposition.

Yes, if that judge has any familiarity with either of the participants or has any preference at all for a particular style of debate and if that judge is attempting to follow any set of rules then rules wonking will be incentivized.

Clever insults are just indirect ad hominem attacks.

My job is to convince a judge that my opponent is "wrong" because they've made "mistakes" in either the framing or some of the specific details of their argument (my opponent is unreliable and or stupid and I am more reliable and or more intelligent for pointing this out).

I think it's an interesting idea, but it seems a bit difficult to implement maybe.

If there was a "self-moderated" debate option, would you participate in a "self-moderated" debate with me?

I believe there is still a benefit to the audience.  I personally prefer to read convincing arguments (instead of clever ad hominem attacks).

"You're a dumb lefty."

"You're a dumb conservative."

"You're a dumb goddist."

"You're a dumb nihilist."

Would you want your posts censored?

 It could also be the case that the Judge respects logical consistency and soundness, and analyzes each argument based on their integrity.

Would you want your posts censored?

Never.

I'm not advocating any changes to the existing format or rules.

I'm merely proposing an option be added to allow "self-moderated" debates.

Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?