-->
@Sum1hugme
He's just a troll man
Name calling = Ad Hominem Attack
is it just me or is debate activity slower
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@MgtowDemon
True. He instead noobsnipped and didn't really need voter manipulation, because he crushed people.
Whenever I see someone has Zero losses, I'm instantly suspicious.
-->
@3RU7AL
Suspicious of what exactly?
That his clique has colluded to keep him winning by sympathetic votes?
That the mods have consistently thrown out votes against him?
That he has loose, under the table agreements of "vote for me and I'll vote for you" with other members?
That the debate system here is systematically rigged?
That the debate system here is fundamentally unfair?
Does your suspicion fall mostly on the winning debater, the voters, the mods, or the system?
-->
@3RU7AL
Whenever I see someone has Zero losses, I'm instantly suspicious.
Rightly so.
-->
@ethang5
Does your suspicion fall mostly on the winning debater, the voters, the mods, or the system?
When people exploit a game, it's a design flaw (systemic).
I propose a parallel system of self-moderated-debate.
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). [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
I think your proposal looks interesting. I want to improve my reading habits and I can't seem to feel any motivations to read when I'm competitively debating. I want my own debates to reward me with motivations to read but they seem to do the opposite. I suppose my debates bore me because they don't contribute to my search for knowledge.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I suppose my debates bore me because they don't contribute to my search for knowledge.
What is it you think you should know? What do you want to know?
-->
@3RU7AL
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas.
All true. But you are assuming that everyone considers a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas to be paramount. You assume this because you are logical and therefore think others on a debate site would be too.
This site isn't that way. What most want here are ELO's and bragging rights. You would think the mids could let you (or someone interested) create a parallel debate system as you suggest, but if that system succeeded, it would necessarily destroy the old rigged system, exactly what they do not want. So rationalizations will be found for why it isn't feasible/possible/practical/necessary.
Would what you suggest increase your participation in debates?
-->
@DebateArt.com
@ethang5
All true. But you are assuming that everyone considers a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas to be paramount. You assume this because you are logical and therefore think others on a debate site would be too.
The worst criticism of "debate" and "arguing" in general is that it's simply formalized ridicule.
This site isn't that way. What most want here are ELO's and bragging rights. You would think the mids could let you (or someone interested) create a parallel debate system as you suggest, but if that system succeeded, it would necessarily destroy the old rigged system, exactly what they do not want. So rationalizations will be found for why it isn't feasible/possible/practical/necessary.
Well, @DebateArt.com said they'd consider adding the option for "self-moderated-debate" (next to "judicial decision") if there was enough "community interest".
Would what you suggest increase your participation in debates?
Yes, I believe it would.
ALSO,
More contests. People love tournaments. People love it when they know that their debate will be read by at least a minimum of 5 people.
Also, do as much as possible to focus some positive attention on the new accounts (especially in the first 90 days).
We want to hear your insane theories (hypotheses) and just plain crazy ideas (just avoid the ad hominem attacks please, no name-calling).
-->
@3RU7AL
From my perspective, my desire to read knowledge is directly tied with my self-esteem. If I don't read enough literature, I feel extremely down. I want to ensure this doesn't happen. I think writing arguments in debates tend to foster defeatism because I think I won't be writing out of a need to understand complex ideas, I will be writing out of a need to win debates. Your proposal looks interesting because I think I can skew the debate titles to make them look like a reading project to read Kant's Critique. I think It's still early to declare anything, but I think your proposal looks promising.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I think writing arguments in debates tend to foster defeatism because I think I won't be writing out of a need to understand complex ideas, I will be writing out of a need to win debates.
Well stated.
7 days later
Activity on this site has someone decreased. That's how this site works. I have more important things to do than argue with people over politics and such, hence why I have been just sitting in mafia. For me, I have been working on college apps and school, so my school takes priority over other things
-->
@Vader
Do you mean somewhat?....
Just trying to be active.
And so, is sitting in Mafia important?....Whatever that might entail.
Does school take priority over sitting in Mafia?
Have a go at my I.Q puzzles, you might find the second one interesting. (Concerning the validity of I.Q.)
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you mean somewhat?....
Yes
Just trying to be active.And so, is sitting in Mafia important?....Whatever that might entail.
No, but it takes up less time than sitting and arguing with someone over the forum
Does school take priority over sitting in Mafia?
Yes
Have a go at my I.Q puzzles, you might find the second one interesting. (Concerning the validity of I.Q.)