The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Gear
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Debate.org's "coming soon" additions will be a good thing.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/10/2008 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 3170
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Con

I am against the new additions debate.org claims they will be launching soon. Thus, the polar opposite of my stance will have to be that the additions are good things, something I think most members will agree on, but I'll remind you that your personal opinions are not the standard of your voting, but which debater proved their point better. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote, you can do so in the comments area. Now to my points.

Here are the additions that will be put up on this site. You can easily view them if you scroll down to the bottom of the main page where it says "Coming Soon". I realize there are more additions viewable when you look in "My Account" but I agree with some of those. I'll simply be arguing against what they have on the main page.

1)Friends and Messages
You will soon be able to build a list of friends, and send them messages directly through your account.

2)Groups
We're giving you the ability to create private and public groups.

3)Forums
Our forums system will span a broad array of topics.

4)Blogs
Publish your very own blog.

5)Custom Polls
Invent your own poll questions and ask the community, or post them on the Internet as a widget.

My main concern is that these features will remove the intellectual nature of this site. I realize that people CAN use them toward a sophisticated purpose, but I highly doubt that they WILL. My main example of this is the atrocity now known as MySpace. Few people know this, but Tom's original purpose for creating the site was to advertise for his band. It started off well enough, but then users began to find different ways to use the sites features for a more personal use. It was not long until the site became a mass social network for preteens though adults, and Tom's band long forgotten. This information is courtesy of a Times Magazine interview with Tom Anderson. All 5 features can be found on any social network, including but not limited to: MySpace, FaceBook, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. I think that if these applications are brought into fruition they will have the same effects on this site in a matter of weeks and make debate.org become another place to talk about your very boring life. Its come to my attention others feel that the site has begun to deteriorate already, and I say these additions will only further that rotting. Onto the specifics of each feature:

1) Friends should be a primary concern. We are all each others opponents here. We must maintain such a status in order to continue to debate. Friends may also cause a certain amount of bias towards one person rather than their argument. Because you are friends you would have a certain amount of loyalty to them, and may vote in favor of their side simply because they are there. Favoritism will only decrease the chances of the opponent, especially if that opponent has less friends than his competition. Also, the messaging is a bad idea. This can be used for conspiracies. Whatever is said here should be viewable to the entire public, as this is a very public site. If you want to talk about you join any of the established social networks, I assure you there's more than enough. These features must not be allowed.

2) Groups will have almost the same effect as friends. Think of it almost like gangs. Some will appeal to one point more than the other. This is a problem current political candidates must overcome. They know a quick tactic to win is to appeal to a group with a large amount of votes. Every candidate knows of and uses this tactic. I see no reason why the same will not happen on this site. While I can not argue against those groups in real life, its more than possible to see that that problem can be avoided here. The corruption can be stopped ahead of time, but once it starts it will never stop.

3) Forums are something this site does not need. There are thousands of other sites that have forums, I see no reason why they need to be here. The current forum method used here is sufficient, being the 1-5 rounds between two people. Mass people forums take away from debating and make it more into a discussion. This isn't discussion.com it's debate.org. We're here to argue, not talk like English women at tea time. If there is something on your chest present it in a debate format like what I am doing right now. If you don't think your last debate was fair post it again and see if the outcome is different. Again, forums will just deteriorate this sites main purpose.

4) Blogs, like forums, will take away from this site. I foresee that it will start off well enough, with topics like "I don't agree with Evolution, here's why" or "Some Points I missed on my Last debate", but then they will quickly escalate to blogs like "I had a bad day today" or "I think dairygirl4u2c posts stuff waaaay to much". These little self monologues will, again, distract on from the main purpose to why they are here. Rather than face the fear that they may lose on a subject they feel is important, they'll just talk about it, free from opposition, and wait for the 'good job' comments to role in.

5) Polls will turn ugly fast, just like the previous 4 features. There is already this feature in your account, being the topics you are For of Against. Click on which one you like, then if you want to know what other people think about it go to their page and see what the Disagreement Ratio is. Adding Polls will do basically the same thing, but with a more pointless purpose. It will just combine people's votes into a useless statistic. I think what we have now is far more beneficial. Besides, you can easily express your feelings on a matter in the comments, a practice many indulge in.

So in summary, I think these features will Kill debate.org rather than help heal it. Before you know it, this site will be another MySpace. I fail to see how the creators do not see this. I doubt this topic will have any real effect on the outcome of whether or not the features will still come up, it's just something I feel will threaten this site. I joined close to it's launch, and its now my favorite and most frequent website to visit, because it was unlike any other site out there. People seemed smart, they wanted to discuss important things, and debated strongly. It wasn't like YouTube or FaceBook were people just did things for the heck of it, spamming the site hoping for some social acceptance from total strangers. No, these members didn't care about that, only about the subjects they argued on. I would hate to lose that individuality.
This is why I feel these features should not be put up, and I defy anyone who says anything to the contrary, though welcome their attempts at justification.
Gear

Pro

Granted, at writing, I haven't been a member even twenty-four hours, however, my stance on the issue is easy enough to state, given the arguments that have been provided.

I do not think this site has the sort-of propensity that MySpace had for turning into a mass social networking site. At the time of creation, sites to connect members throughout specific communities, be it based on location, interests, etc. Were not widely-used, sites like Xanga or the Yahoo Groupings, had their populations, but they did not and still do not have the same functions as a website like MySpace or Facebook. Moreover, there is not a need for branching out to sites like Debate.org when most if not all of everyone you know is using MySpace or Facebook. Furthermore, there still exists a major discrepancy in the behavior of those that use MS/FB often as opposed to those that are registered here. There, an indeed notorious lack of proper grammar, spelling and even etiquette is observed. Here? The antithesis.

First, you assert that the status of opponent ought to be maintained, this thought while having seemingly logical foundations, is flawed. As a member of debate in high school, I am, of course, friends with those on our squad, particularly those that I frequently debate with in class, for our debating of policy. Outside of my school, I am friendly with most other CX debaters. We are friends, yet equally so we still have excellent rounds. Friendship is not a determining factor.

As for your friends/groups issue, this comes from the idea of it is always necessary to win a debate. I have found that when getting into arguments, in the round or outside of it, and I lose said argument, I learn far more (unless it was an illegitimate loss) than had I won. Placing winning as a priority is both terrible for debate and for education, for it encourages exploiting whichever means necessary to win. Consider also what has not been mentioned until now-In that users of this site already have the ability to invite friends to vote, if we were going to see unfair voting, we would have already, as of now, it simply won't occur.

As for messaging be used for "conspiracies"? What do you mean? You don't tell us why this is bad.

Next you posit that forums take away from debate and/or discussion, however, this is not true. The level of responsibility of the individuals on this site, in that we are, for the most part, punctual in the time allotted for responses, and given the large amount of time that often occurs between posts, it may let this site be even more enjoyable than it is now. As for your "we're here to argue" no, as addressed before, the purpose of debate should be, first and foremost, education. And a discussion is a much better way to become educated on an issue than a debate.

I'm not sure on blogs. At one end, I dislike the idea of blogs, but as a whole, I don't see any specific reasons to oppose a blog. As said numerous times within my statement, we are a more responsible more intelligent group than a high percentage of those that use blogs. Besides, they are some issues that can't be argued upon, or not argued well, like philosophy. An in-profile blog could allow thoughts on philosophy or otherwise.

Finally, your argument that polls will "turn ugly fast" while also seemingly grounded in logic, misses the boat. I don't see harm from collective interest polls. Books, video games, movies. We all have different interests, and this can allow us to learn more about each other, have a friendlier environment.

These additions will help this website, encourage growth, users being friendly with each other, and ultimately better Debate.org.
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

I will grant you your lack of knowledge of the workings of this site for your benefit. However, this does not excuse the inaccuracy of your responses. Having been here over three months, I can assure you that the quality of the site and it's members is deteriorating. In many cases, as I'm sure you will gather after looking over some debates, debaters have begun to show a more irresponsible side. Unless a large amount of debaters think this is a viable rebuttal, many rounds are littered with the phrase: "this round was forfeited because the debater did not post their next argument within the allotted time". To me, this shows a lack of enthusiasm and motive of many members. Also, you'll notice more and more immature, unintelligible answers if that debater did dane to show up. So while I can accept that there are very intelligent members here who do take this site seriously, it should also be accepted that there are vastly more here who do not. It is this crowd that concerns me. If I felt that the members here could handle these feature I would not have posted this debate. I do think some can, but its the second, larger, 'bad' group that makes it evident that the majority can not. That having been said, I'll now address your points:

Likeness to social networks - WHile its true, as I stated, that this site has many qualities that are unique in and of themselves, it the members that will ultimately ruin it. As I said above, there is a minority of people whom I believe have the ability to manage these features in a mature way. Meaning, that whether or not this site is different, it will be transformed into another messy social network regardless if given the chance. These features give it that chance. That is all that's needed.

Friends - Heart warming as your social experience is, there is a major flaw you've overlooked, being loyalty. Could you honestly tell me that when viewing a friend vs. anonymous opponent in any of your debate contests, that there is not a feeling of bias towards your companion. Can you really say that your not hoping your friend wins rather than the unknown opponent? If you can say that then you are a very exceptional person, however, you are not everyone else. Most people have a tendency to stick with what they like. They may be willing to taste hagus, but they'll still prefer a cheeseburger in the end. True, there is the chance that someone could vote the other way, but it's a very slim one. So minuscule in fact, it's barely worth consideration. Many people, even though they SHOULD vote on the debate, will often vote on either the topic they like or for an account they prefer. Because the threat is there, and has a much larger probability than it's contestant, it should be held in higher regard. The 'invite your friend' subject falls under here to. The site wants members to stay up. They knew this could be accomplished by debaters wanting free votes via friendship and placed that option there. People know their friends will vote for them, regardless of the quality of their argument. So friendship IS a factor, and a large one at that.

Groups - This site is a competition. Like it or not, people would rather win their debates than take the after-school-special approach and lose but learn. Same in politics, and law, and anything else were legit debate is a factor. So too is it here, just not on such a grandiose scale. The groups would make both wins and loses illegitimate for the reason I mentioned in 'Friends'. The groups will probably have a consistency to vote for a fellow member or one that supports the cause. Also, arguments are not about education, that is simply a by-product. The art of argument is about stating opinions, and conveying them better than you opposition. The reason people post their arguments here is so that their opinions can be heard, and dwarf the reasons to the contrary. 'God is not real' 'Bio fuels are better than gas' 'War on terror should be stopped'. These are not subjects like you could be taught in a class, they are the views of people who want their voices heard and recognized. That is were the voting comes into play. A cheap win (illegitimate) takes that away from both sides, and this is my fear. Everyone here has the right to voice their opinions no matter how controversial the subject and be able to win on it. Groups will take away from that. As for conspiracies, I mean that, say the pro, could go to the group and ask for support. They could do this in two major ways: 1)voting (as I just said) and 2) information. Some people know more than others, its a fact of life. It could almost be viewed as cheating. A person not involved could divulge information pro did not know, that will crush con. This is unfair. Pro used a source outside himself. Had he found that information on his own, there would be no conflict. But the act is synonymous with whispering hints in a persons ear. Certainly something that would not be tolerated in a real debate, yes? This is what I meant.

Forums - As I said before, this is debate.org, not discussion.com. If people which to create a place to just chat about something they can make discussion.com, but that is not the purpose of THIS site. Intelligent argument is. Also, as stated before, this is competitive. If you wish to be high and mighty then try to educate and preach, but it will not help your win ratio.

Blogs - As a proven fact, a majority are proving to not be the intelligent genius's you view them to be. True, there are many here that do fit your whimsical description, but there are many, many more who do not. I see blogs as being one of the biggest things that will soil the nature of this site. Yes, as you said, it could be used for intelligence and philosophy, but I predict it will more often than not, be used for selfish bantering and gossip. Furthermore, philosophy debates have been tried in the earlier life of the site, if you look far enough back, but lately has subsided. It can work, but has mostly been warn out.

Polls - All your reasons are the making of yet another social network. There are plenty of place, as I said before, where you can go and talk about your favorite things as though they hold any real interest to the internet community, but this website is not that siphon.

These additions will not help this website, discourage growth, users being overly friendly with each other, and ultimately worse for Debate.org.
Gear

Pro

Gear forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

Case in Point. I will not further add to my points but maintain them as they are. These additions share traits with social networks, and all take away from the main purpose of this site, which is debating. They go hand in hand. If the debating deteriorates, then the sites reason for existing diminishes as well. These updates will only distract users from the debates and focus in more on themselves (SN). Thus, they are a bad thing for this site. In other places, not so much, but here they have no place.

A final reminder to the reader: as I said in the beginning, your voting is not determined by your own feeling on the additions, but on which side proved their point better. Any influence my opponent or I has on had on your opinion is only a by product. Darth_Grievous_42 Out.
Gear

Pro

Gear forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I have to vote Con obviously. I feel that they will be a good thing overall though.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Nothing is wrong with it. It's just a really good point. So good that I hesitated over whether or not I could effectively counter.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
What is wrong with the 4th point?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
If not for your 4th point, I'd take this up within an instant. If no one takes this up by Friday, I'll debate it.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
WHEN ARE THESE GOING TO COME I'M GETTING BORED!!!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by dmoore 9 years ago
dmoore
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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 wiredpilot12 9 years ago
wiredpilot12
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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 wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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 FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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 Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Darth_Grievous_42GearTied
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