The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Debate.org (this website) should allow all years of birth from 13 years ago up to year zero

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 28503
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Firstly someone could genuinely (off the record in some supernatural form) be very very old indeed but the main issue I have is that even though it's easily possible to make any positive number up to the age-of-14, year, available for selection they only allow people 100 or under to use DDO as beginner but this is DEFINITELY rude to anyone who begins using it at 101+.

you cannot refute this by saying 'no one over 100 years uses the Internet' because that is an invalid assumption that is unfalsifiable and also unproveable.
Ore_Ele

Con

Since this is a 5 round debate, I will use this round as an acceptance and outlining round.

Since this is a debate on a change of DDO, the BOP falls on the one suggesting the change. Also, given that any change will take time and effort of Juggle away from other potential changes, should the debate arguments result in a completely agnostic and neutral position, voters should vote CON.

I will assume that this debate is being done in good faith and integrity and that all words are held to their common meaning in such context as the resolution.

With that, I will allow my opponent the first word.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

Well what if people over 100 years old use the site? That's really my only point.
Ore_Ele

Con

So my opponent's only point is that people over 100 years old may use the site.

This is easily addressed. First, the birth year does not matter and does not have any impact on whether someone can use the site or not. If a 104 year old wants to use DDO, they will not be stopped by this limit. Of course, should this really be an issue on purely ethical grounds, then there is no reason to go all the way back to year 0. The oldest living human is 115, born 1897 [1], so there is no reason to go any further.

Now, Pro did account for this in their opening round, by suggesting that there may be some very very very old people that we simply don't know about. However, this does not in any way support going to year 0. The likelihood of someone being born in the year 114 AD still being alive is the same as the likelihood of someone being born in the year 114 BC still being alive. There is no reason to hate on one and not the other. So changing the year to 0 does not solve the problem, only changes the arbitrary year that the problem focuses around.

Thank you,

[1] http://todaynews.today.com...
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

To script in negative years is an extremely difficult task because it will go to infinite. I set the limit at zero because of practical scripting limits.
Ore_Ele

Con

I will respond to this with two different issues that both need to be addressed.

1) The scripting is actually not very difficult at all. There are a number of ways to do this, you could have "AD" and "BC" be a simple switch that can be triggered to one or the other. Based on the switch, the math is extremely easy to put it. The coding for this is actually not very difficult, as there are already many switches that our profiles use, one more is not a big deal. Another way would be to get rid of "year" altogether and simple allow the user to type in their age and then have their birthday date be the day that the age is given a +1. That as well is not too hard.

2) This does not address the issue. Whether the limit is at year 0 or 1912, some people are being excluded in proper representation. So if some people are being excluded, it is better to exclude for no additional effort, rather than exclude for some additional effort.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

1) Adding AD and BC is silly because before Christ people didn't know much of the date of their birth since the Georgian calendar was only invented after Christ.

2) Being lazy and having a huger error, is not better than putting in effort and having minimal error. After all, it is actually known that people over 100 do live.
Ore_Ele

Con

1) Just because people may or may not be familiar with their exact date of birth (which you cannot really make this argument if you are going to assume humans that can live for unknown lengths of time) does not mean that it is okay to discriminate against them. No more so than you could say that because blacks are less intelligent, they don't need to be allowed into school.

2) Pro has provided no reason to believe that his method would have a lower error. Since we are assuming (due to Pro's R1) that people can live for any indefinite length of time, we cannot say that a cutoff of 100 years will have an error of X and that a cutoff of 2013 years will have an error of Y without knowing at least vague stats about these undocumented age-defying demigods. While there are people that do live to over 100, I go back to what I said in R2 that there is no reason to set the date back past 1897 (the birth year of the oldest known living human). Once they are included to that year, there is no logical data for anything past that, it is all fairy tale.

To reiterate, there is no reason to arbitrarily select the year 0. As said in my R2, the birth year on DDO does not limit whether you can participate or not. As said in R2 (and re-said in this round), there are no known humans that were born before 1897, and so little reason to go beyond that. Since Pro wants to assume the existence of demigods, there is no reason to stop at year 0 and exclude any demigods that were born before then. This proposal by my opponent does not solve any problem and only changes where the supposed "discrimination" occurs.

Let us move into the final round with our summations of the debate.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

Beginning of georgian calendar is indeed reason to pick year zero...
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent has dismissed all of my arguments and has not adequately defended his reasons for requiring us to go past 1897, nor why to stop at year 0.

I pass this along to the voters.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> 'no one over 100 years uses the Internet'.. is unfalsifiable and also unproveable."

That statement is falsifiable. Google "Lilly Strugnell", Facebook's older user at 107 years old. :)

If I could vote, I would vote for Con. Con provided a practical reason to stop at 1897. Pro has not provided a clear argument for allowing a user to enter a birthyear of, say, "12 AD".
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
RationalMadmanOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
RationalMadmanOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree with Pro in principle, but Con addressed all arguments adequately, and therefore wins.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
RationalMadmanOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument came down to personal preferences, whereas a normative proposition was proposed.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 4 years ago
darkkermit
RationalMadmanOre_EleTied
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: PRO does not demonstrate why an arbitrary number 0 should be picked. CON demonstrates that it only needs to go as far back as the oldest person living.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
RationalMadmanOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading the debate I actually agree with Pro, but I vote Con since pro dropped his arguments. Conduct goes Con for the same reason.