The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
SperoAmicus
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Debate.org is too American oriented

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,593 times Debate No: 1308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (19)

 

Farooq

Pro

When I first signed up for debate.org, I was given the choice of country for which I was from, not just which US State (I am not American). It is also on the world-wide web and by no means has it ever stated on the website that this is "Americandebates.com" or "arguments relating the US issues". Yet when one goes to make a public profile and checks at the issues there are several that are just regional things relating the America like the proposed Border Fence, Dubya, the missle shield, etc. These are issues generally regional, and do not cater to the entire debate.org community. In addition the parties one gets to choose from are exclusivly registered in the United States political system and there is a slot for which US presidential candidate one gets to choose for. Although tha majority of this website's patrons are probably Yanks, the website is generally too regionally oriented.
SperoAmicus

Con

While it may be wiser for debate.org to expand its scope to the international use, the idea that the website is "too American" is purely subjective.

The only individual able to make that distinction is the owner, who makes no promises to do anything with his or her resources, and established website, than what they want to do.

Moreover, while the Mission statement of debate.org states in part: "The mission of Debate.org is to create a global online arena..." There is no timeline, criterion, or objectives for the fullfillment of this mission. Only, then, can those with a vested financial interested decide.

Lastly, while debate.org may take any number of steps to improve functionality, it remains a fact that the people who come to the site tend to be American. Debate.org cannot be expected to make quotas or any other restriction on what type of debate users are allowed to post. So only by improving international DEMAND at the site can it be expected to change.
Debate Round No. 1
Farooq

Pro

Although the debate topics chosen are completly up to the users to decide, and the people come from a variety of countries, mainly Anglophone ones, most prominently of all the United States.

But the majoirty of Internet users are not just American, and can come from a variety of different countries. But when they first sign up for debate.org they are faced with editing their profile which is filled with a vairety of wholy American issues like whether or not they support George Bush or buildign a Mexican-American border fence which they dub "Major Issues". This is a faulty statement. Most people in the world barely know anything about George Bush and couldn't care two hoots about how many illegal immingrints the United States has. But instead of labelling these issues "doing more to deter illegal immigration" or somehting more broad that could refer to any country, they dub it with the American definition. This complelty in opposition to their mission statement " to create a global online arena " when they are containign it to a single nation.
SperoAmicus

Con

I've put forward a few arguments which my opponent hasn't addressed.

- "Too American" is too subjective
- The Decision should be based on the intentions and judgements of the owner
- Lack of manifested Demand

The thrust of his argument appears to come down to this:

>"But instead of labelling these issues "doing more to deter illegal immigration" or somehting more broad that could refer to any country, they dub it with the American definition. This complelty in opposition to their mission statement " to create a global online arena " when they are containign it to a single nation."

But the word "Global," again, is attached with no timeline and no criterion. One could very well argue that the American audience even is a global audience, having the highest rate of internet use as well as a massive number of expatriots around the world. One could also imagine that a future timeline exists for debate.org to better address the world audience in due course as the site grows. But the interpretation of the word "Global," and it's intended usage, is not for us to decide, being neither owners, nor investors, nor employed in the marketing or positioning of debate.org.

Nor is there a purpose attached to the inputting of one's national origin. My opponent seems to operate under the assumption that it is meant to distinguish between different types of users, when it may be intended simply as a tool for data collection, the results of which we are not privy to.

Finally, removing the Americanness of the profiling system would remove the point of the profile, which from the measures and statistics provided, may be inferred as helping to draw comparisons between two debators. But comparing what an American thinks about "doing more to deter illegal immigration" to what, say, a Pakistani thinks about the very broad subject, cannot be done with green and red lights.
Debate Round No. 2
Farooq

Pro

"...about the very broad subject, cannot be done with green and red lights."

Although this may apply to some, they are very regional minded thongs and the best way to create productive debates is for the profiles to reflect the general values of each person, which can cross mere national divides. There are many global issues that can be talked about, and shouldn;t we be thinking about philoshpies, moral issues, tax ideals, social programming, and other issues ratehr than regional quarrels?

You also asser that there is not much manifested demand, but many non-Americans are signing up for this as this fourum grows... making them feel welcome will come along way in opening more markets.
SperoAmicus

Con

Again, many of my arguments are unaddressed.

My opponent favors broadening profiles.

>"the best way to create productive debates is for the profiles to reflect the general values of each person, which can cross mere national divides."

But specifics tell more about a person than generalities. Following your round2 example, who would actually support doing more to encourage illegal immigration? It thereby tells you nothing to say that they want to discourage it.

>"There are many global issues that can be talked about, and shouldn;t we be thinking about philoshpies, moral issues, tax ideals, social programming, and other issues ratehr than regional quarrels?"

There are indeed Global issues, but not many want to talk about them as regularly as they want to talk about homegrown arguments.

And broader philosophies are better placed with specific and understandable tangible specifics, otherwise "debate" because mere academia.

>"You also asser that there is not much manifested demand, but many non-Americans are signing up for this as this fourum grows... making them feel welcome will come along way in opening more markets."

But if people are signing up, then debate.org arguably is already fostering a global community, as per their mission statement. Whether profiles ought to be changed accordingly is thereby arbitrary, for two reasons.

1) Bulk of members remain U.S.
2) People around the world follow U.S. politics, more than they follow any other country than their own.

Consequently, debate.org should not be considered too American.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
If you're tired of American debates, it's not that hard to just not read them...
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 9 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
it caught on in the US but I am seeing more and more members from various countries, so instead of harping on the exclusion of other countries I would suggest to promote and talk to people about the site because the only reason I know this site existed is due to a radio advertisement.
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
great play as devil's advocate in that case. it's good to debate agaisnt your views once and awhile.
Posted by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
I agree with you, though, even if I took the debate. They would do better to encourage more international users.
Posted by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
this is a horrible debate, if you want to start a debate that is not America oriented, than by all means do

I have started debates that have nothing to do with America as have others
Posted by Yrael 9 years ago
Yrael
lol, you won't find me arguing this point. Good luck to whoever does.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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 
Vote Placed by kylevd 9 years ago
kylevd
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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 
Vote Placed by aredcard4u 9 years ago
aredcard4u
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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 
Vote Placed by lordmichaelofhavering 9 years ago
lordmichaelofhavering
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by lhs0921 9 years ago
lhs0921
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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 
Vote Placed by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
FarooqSperoAmicusTied
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