Debate.org categories should be revamped.
I think the debate.org categories should be revamped.
My first argument to this end is this debate. It is concerning policy of the site itself. What category does that go in?
Secondly, I understand that Philosophy and Religion are always going to be the most debated, but in the current system there is no categorization of the topics within. There are over 4,000 posts in Religious category and many of them are the same debate over and over. I would actually suggest that an ongoing topic be allowed for the deity of Jesus Christ, but that is another debate topic.
Thirdly some topics need their own categories
Politics almost needs a new category every time there's a new media story. The big issues as part of the user profiles was a great move forward. But every subject fits into the politics category. They are all jumbled up with no distinction between issues.
Abortion debates are in almost every single category.- Well I think this speaks for itself. All debates that aren't pertinent to the category they are placed in should be removed but who is to say concerning abortion. Is it People, Education, entertainment, funny,health, news, philosophy, religion, politics, science, society?
I would like to thank my opponent for their participation.
1) The benefits the site would gain from creating such an intensely diversified topic system do not outweigh the costs or time, effort and money that are required to implement it.
2) The miscellaneous section exists as an alternative section for any topic that is felt to be incapable of being categorised correctly into one of the others.
3) There are already enough sections to suffice the majority of debates. To suggest otherwise is to not truly understand how to categorise the debate, rather than a problem with the categories themselves.
4) There is no single debate resolution that one could come up with that couldn't be categorised into a non-miscellaneous debate category, it is simply difficult to see which sometimes, the error is with the user, or perhaps with the site not having a guide as to how to categorise the resolution (not with the categories themselves).
Rebuttals to opponent's arguments
My first argument to this end is this debate. What category does that go in?
This would either go to the miscellaneous section for its ambiguity or to the technology section since its relating to a technology-run website but most probably miscellaneous as it maintains a grey area in categories.
There are over 4,000 posts in Religious category and many of them are the same debate over and over.
I am confused why my opponent feels that the fact that many debates can end up in the same category proves that it needs to be split further, all it proves is that this site has a bias towards that category and prefers to debate it over others.
Politics almost needs a new category every time there's a new media story.
There's a category called News (http://www.debate.org...) and to keep creating categories with the pace of news reports is entirely impractical.
The effort and cost of creating a system where there are categories created at the pace of news articles is ridiculous and the costs outweigh the benefits.
Thank you challenging me on this topic.
First of all, I would like to commend you for your skill in presentation. Your counter argument is very visually appealing and I would vote in your favor concerning spelling and grammar because of it, if I were able to vote. However, the content disproves itself.
(1)The benefits the site would gain from creating such an intensely diversified topic system do not outweigh the costs or time, effort and money that are required to implement it.
If this were the case, no website would have a topic system and there would not already be one on this site. The benefits of a topic system have already been proven and most user generated content websites already have them. The benefit lies in the implementation of SEO. The easier a site is to navigate, the longer a user will remain on the site. A site with poor and irrational mapping greatly reduces the effectiveness and ability to access the information contained on the site.
(2&4a) The miscellaneous section…
It will always be necessary, and I do not question its usefulness as a category. But at a certain point, there become topics that despite being debated over and over, continue to have no category. If there is no category the debate fits in, sure put in the miscellaneous section. The miscellaneous section should however be the exception the rule, not the norm. Let’s face it, all debates could fit into that category if the current categories that are available weren’t available.
(3a) There are already enough sections to suffice the majority of debates.
The excessive miscategorization of debates, that led me to start this debate, disproves this claim.
(3b&4b)...to not truly understand how to categorise(your spelling error, not mine) the debate,…
Your inability to definitively categorize this debate in your rebuttal beyond miscellaneous proves that that the categories should be revamped, or disproves the inability of the user to understand the categorizing process.
"Thank you [for] challenging me on this topic." You're welcome!
'Categorizing' versus 'categorising' is a difference between U.S. English and the rest of the World's English. Both work.
Rebuttal: If this were the case, no website would have a topic system.
My Retaliation: Debate.org (DDO) has devised its own system of categorising debates. Originally, when it was first being set up, the benefits of setting up such a system outweighed the costs since without it, far less members would ever use the site. It has now reached a point of perfection whereby it no longer needs 'revamping' as the resolution says. The costs now outweigh the benefits that would come to the site today.
Rebuttal: A site with poor and irrational mapping greatly reduces the effectiveness and ability to access the information contained on the site.
My Retaliation: I agree with this, nevertheless DDO's categorisation system is already perfect enough to maintain a constantly high member count without updating it any further.
Rebuttal: Let’s face it, all debates could fit into that category if the current categories that are available weren’t available.
My Retaliation: The types of debates there are usually either troll debates, minority-interest debates requiring obsession with the matter at hand or debates like these where we debate the means by which we're debating itself. There'd be no actual reason to make categories for these debates since any foreseeable obsession would demand an entire creation of a new category and that's just impractical.
Rebuttal: The excessive miscategorization of debates, that led me to start this debate, disproves this claim.
My Retaliation: Your personal motive for creating this debate isn't justification for your side at all.
Rebuttal: Your inability to categorize this debate beyond miscellaneous categories proves that they must be revamped.
My Retaliation: No, it just explains how the miscellaneous category disproves the resolution. It is the loophole in your argument.
Having a miscellaneous section does not negate the need for other categories. Neither does having other categories negate the need for a miscellaneous section. Just because one category is efficient, does not mean the whole categorization system is efficient. This argument is the fallacy of composition.
Between your arguments in round 1&2, you claim that neither a bias toward one category, nor having an obsession with one topic create the need for further division. However, in round 2 you concede that having an efficient organizational system is beneficial and necessary to maintaining a high member count. You also claim that the current system is perfect, even though it is not perfect and has the capacity for both scrutiny in its current form and the ability to be improved.
I think it will be hard for you to prove inefficient cost effectiveness for minority interest debates based on the current division of categories. Many categories have seemingly little interest, yet they have a categorical division, such as movies, tv, fashion, and cars. There are many ways to revamp the category system that would improve the site’s effectiveness and navigation that would increase the number of active members.
The excessive miscategorization of debates does disprove your claim of having enough categories to suffice the majority of debates. Attacking my personal interest in the matter does not diminish its validity.
In final conclusion, I believe that we both agree on the importance of a categorization system. I think there are many drawbacks to the current system and it should be revamped, whereas my opponent claims that it is perfect the way it is. From the previous two rounds, I gather that he believes all categorization systems are perfect so long as they have a miscellaneous category. Now I ask you the voters, Should there be modifications to DDO's debate categorizing system, or should it remain how it is forever?
Having a miscellaneous section does negate the need for new ones as any debate that can't be categorised in other sections can simply go to the miscellaneous one. It's a very simple line of logic to follow. If anything what you did was a straw man fallacy as you thought I said because one category works, no more are needed, which wasn't my argument.
The current system is indeed perfect, there is no single debate that can't be categorised in either a specific category or the miscellaneous one.
My opponent then seems to think that because some categories involve minority interests than others, this means that they should be infinitely divided into every minority interest possible to be debated on. This is a huge leap of faith and is a completely irrational proposition. The categories are fine as they are and, as my opponent pointed out, already cover a vast array of minority interests. Nevertheless, this doesn't prove that dividing them further is required as the miscellaneous section takes care of any extreme minority interest debates or debates that cover more than one category, such as abortion (which most of the time is merely thought to cover more than one but 9 times out of 10 is just the debate creator not realising that they are either specifically discussing the politics of it, religious attitude towards it or philosophy of it).
The excessive mis-categorisation of debates (which my opponent never gave one linked example of) shall be negated as either a bogus theory or one that occurs due to an error in the debate creator's ability to categorise, not in the categorising system available.
In conclusion, the debate categorising system is perfect as it is. My opponent resorted to straw man attacks that have ultimately dug his own grave.
Thank you for reading.
 The YouTube video at top right. http://www.debate.org...
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|