The Instigator
Mikeee
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
cameronl35
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

DDO needs a history catagory

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 18746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Mikeee

Pro

Pro will have to make a convincing argument that DDO should add a history category

Con will have to make a convincing argument that a history category is not needed and should not be added.

First round is for questions and acceptance only

No semantics (I don't know how it would be possible but...?)

NOT A DEBATE OF WEATHER OR NOT HISTORY IS IMPORTANT

SHOULD DDO ADD A HISTORY CATEGORY (yes or no)
cameronl35

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikeee

Pro

DDO needs to add a history category because, it is lacking one. A history category is needed because there are some topics that only fit into that category. History is as broad a category as science, economics, religion, society, and all the other important categories.

Adding a history category would not big a huge change and will not affect any of the other subjects. Adding a new category will encourage more people to debate historical events, and will help categorize strictly historical debates and not historical/religious debates.

One example of a debate category that would not fit in any of the pre-existing categories id; Jesus had a negative effect on the Roman Empire (another empire, or world). This would not be a religious debate because it is not discussing faith; it is discussing actual proven things that Jesus did. There is actual evidence that Jesus went from one place to another, however, there is not "actual evidence" for weather or not he was a god, or actual preformed all the miracles it talks about in the bible (that would be a debate concerning the religious aspects). If this was placed in the religious category, people would assume it was a debate on aspects of the faith, and not on the actual historical context.

If there is a scientific debate about evolution, people are not discussing faith (if it's in the science category); they are debating the scientific aspects, and have no concern about faith for the purpose of that debate. Science is a broad category, as is History. Posting debates in a certain category allow the debater to debate according to a set discipline, such as science.

Conclusion

Adding a new category, History, will be beneficial to DDO and its users.
cameronl35

Con

I will first like to start by defining "need"
need-require (something) because it is essential or very important
This means that DDO NEEDS a history category.
http://english.oxforddictionaries.com...
Responses:
"DDO needs to add a history category because, it is lacking one."
What? Just because something is lacking doesn't mean it is necessary. Your claim does not make sense. I do agree that history should be studied, but debating on history and the NEED of a category is unnecessary.

R1) Jesus argument
Debating about what happened thousands of years ago is not important today. Using example of history is relevant and important to debate TODAY'S topics, but debating history is merely a waste of time. It doesn't really get you anywhere, as compared to understanding history.

R2) Evolution argument
Since we are still evolving, debating evolution is a lot more relevant and useful to today than debating the past. What is important is to debate what is important now, therefore DDO has no NEED for a history category.

C1) Quantity
There have been some debates about history, but not many. Most of the arguments in history are related to today's topics, such as Religion. You do not see many users complaining for a history category. Let's define DDO as the whole community of DDO, the debaters and the moderators. If the debaters are not making a drastic request or even a somewhat strong request for the topic, why is it a need for the moderators/debaters?

C2) Importance
As I have stated previously, debating History is irrelevant. What is relevant is studying history, the aspects of how decisions affected society in the past, and understanding how different societies have turned out so we can make a better world for ourselves. If we are debating how to form America's government, we can use examples of previous government successes and failures. This DOES NOT fall under the history category. DDO has no use in debating history. If they have no use, it is not a need.

Response to Conclusion:
My opponent's conclusion does not really justify the resolution. The debate is not whether about whether it would be beneficial. The debate is about whether it is a need or not.

Burden:
My opponent must justify how the moderators and the rest of the staff of DDO NEEDS this category. Mikeee provides no reasoning explaining this. My opponent also needs to justify how this a need, rather than a beneficial process. Lastly, my opponent must justify how debating history is as important as debating any current issue, such as the categories refer to.

Final Focus:
A history category is not needed for DDO. The moderators have no use and the debaters from what I have heard have not been asking for one commonly. Debating history gets you almost nowhere, for you just proved a side on a problem of the past. If you want to use history to reflect on a current issue, this does not fall under the history category. Thus debating history is NOT needed. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikeee

Pro

"I will first like to start by defining "need"

NO SEMANTICTS!

Cons argument is are the same points; History has no relevance, it is not NEEDED in DDO, and it is not being asked for, therefore it is not wanted

Rebuttal

"The moderators have no use and the debaters from what I have heard have not been asking for one commonly."
Moderators and users have a use for a history category. In order to be able to host this site, Juggle needs to have enough traffic. It is in Juggles best interest to create new features that will bring in more people, without people the site dies. Adding a history category will bring in more people, that want to debate history. By spending more time on the site, and having more traffic, DDO would benefit from this change.

Many people already in the DDO community say that they do want a history category to be added. 8 out of 17 (9 people said they did not support it) people said that they do want DDO to add a History category [1]. Out of the people who responded, 47%, almost half, support it. 47% is a large enough percent for Juggles to notice. If almost half (of the people who answered) and another 10%+ (of 17) people joined, then DDO would have that much more traffic which would benefit the DDO and Juggles profit. If about half the people (who responded) do want it, then it is only reasonable to add it, therefore Con's argument that people do not want a history category, is false.

Expanding on my point I made last round, adding this new category would encourage more debates in a strict discipline (history). If someone wants to debate the scientific possibility of a god, they debate it in science not religion. If someone wants to have a debate strictly on "actual evidence" in a specific category, adding new ones makes it easier to create a debate that focuses on a single aspect of a wider subject.

Con says that History has no relevance, which is an opinion which is largely biased. History has lots of practical applications, but that is not what is being debated.

Conclusion:

The DDO community and Juggles will benefit from adding a new category, History. Enough people have asked/supported it, therefore it should be added. Adding a new category would be relatively easy, and if the people who did not support it still oppose it, there is nothing stopping them from just ignoring it.

Sources:

[1] http://www.debate.org...
cameronl35

Con

I was defining one word because I felt this was a key component of the debate, and does not venture deep into semantics.

R1) You have no credible evidence saying that a new category will bring in new people. You can not just make such a blanket statement without something to back it up. In order for new people to join, advertising and recommendation must be done. Adding a history category will have almost no impact on advertising or recommendations, therefore this argument is completely invalid.

R2) I would like to say that this argument is completely incorrect. We should already discredit this as credible evidence since you proposed this, therefore a good answer is not reliable. Onward, my opponent has falsely informed the readers! According to my counting of all the responses that were clear enough to determine, four people were for and 11 people were against, not including yourself. Also, one person did not care. This is not enough for Juggle to notice and like I said, this will not lead to traffic. My opponent has no evidence and I don't know why my opponent believes this. Therefore again, this argument is completely invalid.

Again no evidence is provided and no logic is behind this claim that it will add more points. It would merely cause some debates to fall under a different category, not bring in more people. I don't see how this god example or the "actual evidence" example pertains at all to the resolution and justifies his case.

Again, I am not disregarding the practical applications of History. I am saying that history has little positive impact in a debate and does not bring in traffic.

Dropped Arguments:
C1: My opponent completely disregards my second contention and provides almost nothing to argue against this. All he states is that my opinion is "biased" without justifying.
C2: My opponent provided false evidence that people are demanding me, and as I proved earlier this is not true, therefore my contention still stands.
Burden: My opponent has not at all justified how adding history is a NEED. This is what the resolution states, not that it will have not have a negative impact and very little positive.

Conclusion: Due to the dropped arguments, false evidence, my opponent not justifying the resolution at all, and not fulfilling his burden. I strongly negate the resolution and urge a con vote.

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
If you plan to make a point on history being important or not, keep it related to DDO, last debate it go way off topic and ended up having nothing to do with DDO
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Mikeeecameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry to be contradictory, but pro kinda won on the dont be specific about every word thing. And he shoed the people support it
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Mikeeecameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: By the resolution, Pro had to show that a history category was NECESSARY for DDO, and unfortunately his arguments did not show that, as shown by Con's response. Pro's attempt to show that history was necessary to learn was hindered by his failure to present any compelling point (ex. "Iis in Juggles best interest to create new features that will bring in more people, without people the site dies."--Con noted the lack of evidence...)...
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Mikeeecameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Does this really need a reason? Sorry. Pro, you failed to define need and con used it to his advantage. Con obliterated pro when showing that there is no need for one.