The Instigator
Dali
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
slayer54321
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.

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: 7/31/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 4848
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

Dali

Pro

This is my first debate so I am doing this to learn and to complain. There is simply not enough information available until you join. for instance
1. I have no idea how long I have to respond to a debate.
2. There is no area that explains things like short hand for arguments
3. There is no place that discusses what would be considered "good form" an appropriate way of interacting with each other, other than what i am not allowed to say.
4. As I am typing there is a little counter counting down. But I don't know if there is a way to adjust it or if the "next round" (something i discovered by reading through the completed debates) will have the same amount of characters.
slayer54321

Con

I will respond to all your points and then create my own if I need to.

First, you say
"1. I have no idea how long I have to respond to a debate."

You will see that after I post this rebuttal. I don't really feel this is not important before posting a debate. If you have somewhere to be, don't make the debate.
----------------------------------------------------
Next, you say
"2. There is no area that explains things like short hand for arguments"

Please explain short hand for arguments, I have no idea what that means.
----------------------------------------------------
And,
"3. There is no place that discusses what would be considered "good form" an appropriate way of interacting with each other, other than what I am not allowed to say."

You should really already know if you mean talking to other debaters through comments. It IS explained, you know. No racism, no cursing, etc. It's all explained when you join, you just weren't paying attention.
-----------------------------------------------------
And last,
"4. As I am typing there is a little counter counting down. But I don't know if there is a way to adjust it or if the "next round" (something I discovered by reading through the completed debates) will have the same amount of characters."

Why wouldn't it have the same amount of characters? There is no way to adjust the timer. That makes debate.org realistic and challenging. In real life, you're not going to just walk away from court just because you don't have time. And honestly. You don't know what the "next round" is? You made the debate three rounds at the starting of this debate. Round 1, Round 2, Round 3. Amazing.
-----------------------------------------------------

If debate.org gave you more information, what would be the challenge? You would all be a high level debater at the start. What's debating if you don't work your way up to the top? And besides, I don't think anyone would like a website telling them how to be a good debater. They should develop their own styles of debating.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Dali

Pro

It's sad that i have to do this but let me restate what I have said and then compare that to how you have already misquoted/misunderstood me.

I said: 1. I have no idea how long I have to respond to a debate.

You said: "I don't really feel this is not important before posting a debate.If you have somewhere to be, don't make the debate."

Debating would be easier if you would proof read before posting, but i think I get the gist of what you were saying. If not please correct me, I am after all arguing on the side of communication. My point was that I did not know if I would have minuets, hours, days, or even weeks to respond. I didn't have that information until I registered, made a profile, started a debate, made an opening argument, you accepted the debate, made your argument, and I came back to respond. Then I found out I have about 3 days to respond. You seem to think having that information before hand is unreasonable. I think being denied that information beforehand is unreasonable.

_________________________

I said: 3. ..."good form"...
You said: "It IS explained, you know. No racism, no cursing, etc. It's all explained when you join, you just weren't paying attention."

Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between manners and the law. That is the only explanation I have thought of for you mistaking "good form" for "Rules". Breaking the rules would be typing the other way to pronounce "sofa king" but I would suspect that comparing someone's inability to keep up with the situation in a debate to that person still supporting Hillary Clinton even thought she is out of the race would be considered not "good form". Just a guess, but if the information was out there I would'n have to be guessing now would I?

_________________

In response to my 4

you said: "Why wouldn't it have the same amount of characters?"

My answer: Because many types of debates do not have the same amount of time per round. Here character count is somewhat being used instead of time, so if debate.org were adhering to many of the other forms of debate each round could have a different amount of time. But Again that information was not available until I got into a debate. Which is why debate.org should post it.
-

You said: "There is no way to adjust the timer [I assume you meant counter not timer]. That makes debate.org realistic and challenging."

My Response: I don't quite see how it would be unrealistic without a timer/counter, but you can have the same debate formate with different amounts of time. And as to challenging... It would be more challenging if the form were somewhat different each time. You would have to constantly adapt, not only to your opponent but also to the field as it were. But once again this information was not available which is why...Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.
-

You said: "In real life, you're not going to just walk away from court just because you don't have time."

My response: you are absolutely right. In real life I would not just walk away from court just because I don't have time. But I would also be able to find out about the law before going in. I would be able to talk to someone who has done it before. I would be able to learn something before being expected to speak to a jury. That is what I am asking from debate.org. Let us know about your court procedures before you ask us to testify.
________________________

And finally when you weren't misquoting me, you had you own thought of
"If debate.org gave you more information, what would be the challenge?"

My response: Knowing the rules does not remove the challenge. Take a look at any type of professional competition.
-
You said "You would all be a high level debater at the start."

My response: That is an absurd statement. That is like saying that if you knew all the rules of base ball you would be a pro athlete. Do I really have to explain the difference between knowledge and talent to you? I would hope not.
-
You said "What's debating if you don't work your way up to the top?"

My response: Debating is a way of challenging ideas by taking different sides of the issue. While winning your way to the top may be a nice goal or achievement, the score is not the game.
-
You said "And besides, I don't think anyone would like a website telling them how to be a good debater. They should develop their own styles of debating."

My response: Again I agree. I don't want debate.org to tell me how to be a good debater. But I do I want debate.org to tell me about debate.org.
_______________________

This is the age where information is in abundance. Debate.org not giving people information about how their own site works until they sign up and start a debate is like not telling someone the difference between a ball and a strike until they have a bat in their hand and are at bat. I know some people would chose to dive right into a debate and just go for it, but that would be a choice. As it is right now you have no choice. Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.

______________________
You said "Vote Con"

My response: If you believe that people should be forced to act in ignorance then yes vote con. If you think courtesy and law are the same thing then yes vote con. But if you believe in choice, or if you know the difference between form and function then VOTE PRO.
slayer54321

Con

Okay, that Hillary Clinton thing was low. I know I haven't changed it, but I can still root for her even though she's not running. That is completely irrelevant to the topic so please lay off the personal attacks. And you are unprofessional for resorting to personal attacks (happy, Alex?).

Now then, back to the matter at hand. So much to rebut. This could get annoying.

First, you say,
"My point was that I did not know if I would have minuets, hours, days, or even weeks to respond. I didn't have that information until I registered, made a profile, started a debate, made an opening argument, you accepted the debate, made your argument, and I came back to respond. Then I found out I have about 3 days to respond. You seem to think having that information before hand is unreasonable. I think being denied that information beforehand is unreasonable."

You can actually find that information before you become a member. Just watch any debate. It says, for example "It is ********'s turn to debate. He has has 02:23:51:40 remaining to post his next argument, otherwise he will forfeit this round. When you see the seconds ticking down, you will realize that they are seconds, and work your way up to realize that from right to left it is seconds, minutes, hours, days. I do not think having it beforehand is unreasonable, just unnecessary. A (good) debater should be prepared to have a small amount of time to post an argument. But in the case that he MUST know beforehand, he can always check the other debates on this website.
-------------------------------------------------
Next, you say
" Breaking the rules would be typing the other way to pronounce "sofa king" but I would suspect that comparing someone's inability to keep up with the situation in a debate to that person still supporting Hillary Clinton even thought she is out of the race would be considered not "good form". Just a guess, but if the information was out there I wouldn't have to be guessing now would I?"

Yea, I messed up there. Why do you need to know "good form"? You can make your own form and it's not like we vote based on the form, we vote based on how good you debated (at least that's what's supposed to happen) so why should you care?
--------------------------------------------------
Quote from you:
"Because many types of debates do not have the same amount of time per round. Here character count is somewhat being used instead of time, so if debate.org were adhering to many of the other forms of debate each round could have a different amount of time. But Again that information was not available until I got into a debate. Which is why debate.org should post it."

Once again, the information was available to you. If you see my time model, you can check the time in all the types of debates on this site and see how long each round lasts beforehand.
--------------------------------------------------
Quote from you:
" I don't quite see how it would be unrealistic without a timer/counter, but you can have the same debate format with different amounts of time. And as to challenging... It would be more challenging if the form were somewhat different each time. You would have to constantly adapt, not only to your opponent but also to the field as it were. But once again this information was not available which is why...Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member."

You can check if the timer is different each time (see above).
---------------------------------------------------
Quote from you:
"In real life I would not just walk away from court just because I don't have time. But I would also be able to find out about the law before going in. I would be able to talk to someone who has done it before. I would be able to learn something before being expected to speak to a jury. That is what I am asking from debate.org. Let us know about your court procedures before you ask us to testify."

This in no way proposes another factor that debate.org leaves out before becoming a member. And if it does, you can see the procedures by watching and studying debates on debate.org before becoming a member.
----------------------------------------------------
And from there:
"And finally when you weren't misquoting me, you had you own thought of"

To

"Again I agree. I don't want debate.org to tell me how to be a good debater. But I do I want debate.org to tell me about debate.org."

Is completely irrelevant to the topic. Oh yea, and to the end.

Vote Con. And Dali, please don't comment on that. Please.
Debate Round No. 2
Dali

Pro

This being the final round I will rebut my opponent and then illustrate the basic information that debate.org should make available before you become a member.

My opponent said:
"...that was low...That is completely irrelevant...lay off the personal attacks..."

My Response:
I never once said that I was referring to my opponent. It was an open ended analogy about a current event I used to make a point about "good form". My opponent chose to take it personally. I stated that "good form" would be an example of information that debate.org should make available. It would appear that my opponent views current events and analogies as "personal attacks". And when used to make a point about the topic, my opponent states that they are "irrelevant". Perhaps if Debate.org had posted information about "good form", or what would be considered a personal attack, or encouraged debaters not to take things personally unless they are stated as such, my opponent would not have misunderstood my comment. Things like this could have been avoided if debate.org had more information available before you become a member. So I thank my opponent for reinforcing the need for just such information. And to clarify so that these misfortunes can be avoided in the future I will refer to my opponent as "my opponent" and to the reading audience/voters as "you".

-----
In argument against my claim that people are not informed of how long they will have to respond, My opponent said:
"You can actually find that information before you become a member... He has has 02:23:51:40 remaining to post his next argument...I do not think having it beforehand is unreasonable, just unnecessary. A (good) debater should be prepared to have a small amount of time to post an argument. But in the case that he MUST know beforehand, he can always check the other debates on this website."

My response:
You actually cannot find that information. My opponents use of 02:23:51:40 was from one debate. And time had already lapsed on that debate. If you were to use my opponents method of searching through active debates to determining how long you have to respond, the times would be all over the place. And the actual answer of 3 days would be nowhere. Which is why debate.org should have more information available. My opponent then supports my argument by stating that having that information would not be unreasonable. Or, without the double negative, having that information would be reasonable. My opponent then brings up the point of necessity even though necessity is not the topic. My opponent says that a debater should be prepared. I agree, and if this were a traditional debate knowing how long I have to respond and how long my opponent has to respond would be part of my preparation. Preparation is another reason that debate.org should have more information available. My opponent then repeats the flawed method of determining how long debates are.
_____________________
My opponent agreed with my distinction between rules and courtesy, but then asked "Why do you need to know "good form"?"

My response:
This is my first debate. The reason to know "good form" is to avoid the confusion from earlier. If debate.org had said "take the time to get to know your opponent so that you can avoid inadvertently making an argument that your opponent may take personally.", then this whole mess could have been avoided in the first place. Yet another reason that debate.org should have more information available.
_______
My opponent stated:
"Once again, the information was available to you. If you see my time model, you can check the time in all the types of debates on this site and see how long each round lasts beforehand."

My response:
Once again, my opponent's time model does not work. And my opponent only addressed the issue of time, not the limit on characters. There is not a real way to determine how many characters a debater can use in each round. Knowing how many characters you are able to use per round is another example of information that debate.org should have made available.
______
When I made the comment of "… I don't want debate.org to tell me how to be a good debater. But I do I want debate.org to tell me about debate.org.". My opponent said that my comment was completely irrelevant to the topic.
My opponent claiming irrelevance makes little to sense because the topic is about debate.org giving more information. Perhaps my opponent was referring to my desires as being irrelevant, but due to apparent previous toe stepping, I won't speculate any farther than that on my opponent's beliefs. Suffice to say that debate.org giving more information about debate.org is relevant to the topic of "Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member."
____
For the most part my opponent argues that debate.org should not have more information available before you become a member because that information is already available. My opponent came to this conclusion by suggesting the method of search and infer. That simply does not work.

No amount of searching and inferring will tell you that you always have 3 days to make your next argument.

No amount of searching and inferring will reveal that the 3 day time limit cannot be extended or condensed on a debate.

No amount of searching and inferring will show that you must make your argument in 8000 characters or less.

No amount of searching and inferring indicates that the 8000 character limit cannot be changed.

No amount of searching and inferring will tell you exactly how many rounds you are allowed, because that changes on each debate.

This information is readily available after you become a member, but the topic is addressing the issue before membership.

When not the using faulty "search and infer" model my opponent argues against the disclosure of such information by stating that a debater should not need it, or that debate should be a challenge.

My response:
Knowing the rules does not remove the challenge. Simply making that information available for those who would like to know it would not take anything away from those who would prefer to jump right in.

I am arguing for more information to be available beforehand so that you can choose your style and approach. My opponent seems to be saying that you should create your own approach as long as your style includes jumping in blind. I think Henry Ford said something similar about the color of model Ts. And I apologize if my opponent is a fan of the model T. It was an analogy and should not be take personally.
____

If you are the kind of person that likes to jump right in, then Vote Pro. If you prefer to know what you are jumping into before you jump, then Vote Pro. If you think that people should at least have the opportunity to know what they are getting into before they get into it, then Vote Pro. The only reason that I can see to Vote Con is because you both like to jump right in AND you feel that everyone else should want the same thing that you do. If however you feel that people are different and should be allowed to make their own choices then Vote Pro, because Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.

And I would like to thank my opponent for making my first debate an interesting and educating one. It's just unfortunate that Debate.org forced me to learn this way.
slayer54321

Con

First before anything, I will make all those comments about my time model null and void. My time model DOES work. All you have to do is sit in front of the computer screen for hours on end and refresh the page every 5 seconds :D. No, i'm serious. It still works. So yes, that information IS readily available BEFORE BECOMING A MEMBER. Thank you.

Now that those rebuttals are out of the way, on to the ones I will actually have to quote.

Quote from you:
"Perhaps if Debate.org had posted information about "good form", or what would be considered a personal attack, or encouraged debaters not to take things personally unless they are stated as such, my opponent would not have misunderstood my comment. Things like this could have been avoided if debate.org had more information available before you become a member."

I honestly think you and any other new debater have the intelligence to figure out what good form is. And especially what a personal attack is. It means insulting pretty much. People have different ideas of good form, so make your own. Oh look, now that information is readily available for any pre-member! That was probably a cheapshot, but it's true.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote from you:
"The reason to know "good form" is to avoid the confusion from earlier. If debate.org had said "take the time to get to know your opponent so that you can avoid inadvertently making an argument that your opponent may take personally.", then this whole mess could have been avoided in the first place. Yet another reason that debate.org should have more information available."

I just made the "good form" point null and void. Hooray for me. And now the "good form" series does not need further rebuttal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote form you:
"My opponent claiming irrelevance makes little to sense because the topic is about debate.org giving more information. Perhaps my opponent was referring to my desires as being irrelevant, but due to apparent previous toe stepping, I won't speculate any farther than that on my opponent's beliefs. Suffice to say that debate.org giving more information about debate.org is relevant to the topic of "Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member."

When I said it was irrelevant, I meant that you didn't bring out a new point. You just restated the topic. You didn't say something like "I don't know how long I have to post my next round S0 debate.org should have more information available to me before I become a member".
-------------------------------------------------------
Quotes from you:
"No amount of searching and inferring will tell you that you always have 3 days to make your next argument.

No amount of searching and inferring will reveal that the 3 day time limit cannot be extended or condensed on a debate.

No amount of searching and inferring will show that you must make your argument in 8000 characters or less.

No amount of searching and inferring indicates that the 8000 character limit cannot be changed.

No amount of searching and inferring will tell you exactly how many rounds you are allowed, because that changes on each debate."

Point 1 refers to the time model, which I have proved works. Point 2 refers to the time model which i have proved works. Points 3-5 I cannot rebut, but I have a trick up my sleeve which I will use in the end (I sort of used it earlier this round).
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote from you:
"Knowing the rules does not remove the challenge. Simply making that information available for those who would like to know it would not take anything away from those who would prefer to jump right in.

I am arguing for more information to be available beforehand so that you can choose your style and approach. My opponent seems to be saying that you should create your own approach as long as your style includes jumping in blind. I think Henry Ford said something similar about the color of model Ts. And I apologize if my opponent is a fan of the model T. It was an analogy and should not be taken personally."

Okay, so you may be right. BUT either I have already made your points null and void, or I will right after this sentence.
-------------------------------------------------------

Now then, as for points 3-5 above, I will now use that "trick". Watch.

Point 3: Every round in a debate on debate.org must be 8000 or less characters, but not under 100. Oh gods, I think it's readily available before you become a member now. Null and void.

Point 4: You can not change this character limit during or not during a debate. Oh gods, I think it's readily available before you become a member now. Null and void.

And Point 5: You may have one to five rounds in a debate. Oh gods, I think it's readily available before you become a member now. Null and void.

And if you don't think of this as evidence, then ask someone on debate.org about it. I think what I just said is true and therefore makes those points null and void. Anything else you don't know about debate.org, I can easily post it in a comment and then it will be readily available before you become a member.

Vote Con. You know why. I hope you do.

V
O
T
E

C
O
N
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by KirkPorter 8 years ago
KirkPorter
Nin cum poo.

The pro is delusional I say. Delusional.
Posted by Dali 8 years ago
Dali
My comment was not in response to Xera. It was for any future readers of this debate. I was simply trying to provide an independent source on a word that played a pivotal role here.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Umm Dali, what was with that comment, if I understand correctly, Xera was on your side.
Posted by Dali 8 years ago
Dali
read·i·ly [red-l-ee] –adverb 1. promptly; quickly; easily: The information is readily available. (dictionary.com)
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Those were cheap shots "muffin-cat" thus I vote pro. partly because new members don't always know where to go for information on it. Also because he did not deliberately take cheap shots at his opponent.
The Hilary Clinton thing was hilarious though :P
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I vote pro. By treating the points made in the last round as 'readily available' he proved that the info was not readily available before. This is not true as anyone that has watched the longer winded debates can see multiple postings of:

"25 characters" or "8000 character limits suck, argument concluded in comment section" or when forfeitures are occurring, "I have nothing to respond to. Vote PRO. 100 characters (repeated)."

This debate is readily available now. In 3 days it will be buried pages in and would require a search to find, which would require that one KNOW to search a debate topic for policies and procedures. It harmed Pro's case that he is the one that mentioned the word "readily." NONE of this information is readily available. It must be researched and discovered over time. Some enjoy finding the information and the learning process, others do not.

This site is laid back: people do whatever they want to. There are very few hard and fast rules: BUT I have voted against people for presenting a new argument in the last round. Likewise, some members have gotten into a trouble (in the form of ticking off other members)in debates for not citing a source. Some members get into trouble for giving aid to one side in the comments section during the debate.

These are not rules, simply 'bad form.' Unless membership is exclusive to those that actually debate in person, then it seems reasonable to have a brief little FAQ that would explain such instances to the uninformed. Since a FAQ already exists, it should not be difficult to add a bit.

Finally con never attacked the concept of 'should.' The closest he ever got was 'unnecessary.' While it may be somewhat unnecessary, that is irrelevant in the context of 'should.'
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
Dalislayer54321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by greengrl223 8 years ago
greengrl223
Dalislayer54321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Derth 8 years ago
Derth
Dalislayer54321Tied
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 Dali 8 years ago
Dali
Dalislayer54321Tied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Dalislayer54321Tied
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 Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
Dalislayer54321Tied
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 Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Dalislayer54321Tied
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 schoolglutton 8 years ago
schoolglutton
Dalislayer54321Tied
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 gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Dalislayer54321Tied
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