The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'

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: 3/27/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 3403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (15)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

To make this perfectly clear, the catagories I am talking about are under the 'debate' tab at the top of your screen. The catagories currently are:
All
Arts
Business
Education
Entertainment
Health
News
Politics
Regional
Science
Sports
Technology

There are few reasons why this should be added.

1. There are numerous amounts of debates on this site, about this site, but there is no clear place to put these debates. It would be clear where to put it, and would not create any confusion.

2. The debate.org webmaster, as well as ordinary members, could go to this catagory and see how the website could be improved. Many debates, as I assume, are wiped off the opening screen in a day or two, and the moderators of this site do not get to see it. Especially with the new website launching, it would be very helpful in deciding what should be improved.

3. This could get the word out about things that people would normally not see. Debates like the information about the tournament and updates on the update, would be better suited and more eficent to be in a certain catagory where people can see it.

Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response.
beem0r

Con

Greetings and good luck to my opponent.

I will attempt to show you and the other voters why a Debate.org category should not be added to the list as it stands.

I will first address my opponent's numbered points, which you can reference by scrolling up to his first round argument.

1. There is a clear place to put these. This is the Technology category. Some people make the mistake of thinking of technology simply as breakthroughs in science and medicine or new types of machinery, but Technology refers to a much wider range of topics. Technology can be defined as anything that helps us complete tasks in new or better way. Email, for example, is a technology that helps us communicate in a new way. Debate.org allows us to debate things in a new way - by using an effective proprietary online debating system. This site is a piece of technology, and therefore any debates about it should be put in that category.

2. This sounds good at first, until we consider what the webmaster can already do. First, there is a comment box down south (at the bottom of the screen). If you click that, you can send a direct suggestion to the webmaster and other debate.org staff. Second, there is a search function. This would reveal all the debates about debate.org, regardless of whether they were put in the wrong category or not. Third, the webmaster and the coders are doing a fantastic job already planning what features to implement, and I find it unlikely that my opponent's plan will make them any more capable in this field.

3. There is already a much more reasonable place for the staff to post critical information. A debate is not the preferred way for a normal member to make an announcement, it is simply how it must be done right now, until 3.0 is released. Any official announcements the site has can and are put on the front page. To be frank, my opponent's advocacy does not make it any easier for us to get the information we seek. The status quo is just as good as far as this point is concerned.

Seeing that debates about Debate.org fit under the category "Technology," it would be absurd and would cause confusion if the staff added a Debate.org category. Also, my opponent's reasoning for advocating this is that "a lot of debates are made about it." This reason could be used to advocate a "President Bush" category, a "Games" category, or any other number of ridiculous, unneeded categories.

I now wait for my opponent to disagree with my definition of technology, claiming that Debate.org does not fall under that umbrella.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

First, I'd like to say that there is very little offense on the CON side. Although the CON can win on this, if I prove one argument as an advantage, you must vote for me. Here's why: Although there could be no reason for doing this, there is no reason NOT to. So, if I prove one reason why there should be, and there is no reason not to, it should be changed.

With that said, let's take a look at my opponent's arguments.

1. <>

How'd you know??? I will prove that debate.org does not meet these definitions.

All of these definitions are taken from:
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I did not use the definitions that had 'technology' in their definitions, such as 1 and 3 on the first dictionary.

"2.the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature."

Debate.org is not art, nor a science.

"4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization."

Debate.org is not a material object.

"1. a.The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
b.The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective."

Again, debate.org is no science.

"2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group."

Debate.org is not an electronic or digital tool.

"science of the mechanical and industrial arts"

Debate.org is not a mechanical nor industrial art.

"1. the practical application of science to commerce or industry
2. the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems;"

One last time, debate.org is not a science, nor is debating an industry or business.

I could go on, but here's what I'm getting at: technology must use science or mechanics, and it must be a material object. Debate.org is a website, not a material object, and does not use science. A computer may meet this definition, a website doesn't.
Although Beem0r's definiton was right at one time, it is not now. In other words, the english language is what we make of it. If people say technology means now digital tools, then it is.

All in all, there is really no clear place to put these debates, and a debate.org catagory would clear up the confusion.

2. First, a comment box is even less helpful than a debate. The webmaster does not have time to read EVERY SINGLE comment on EVERY debate. Plus, most comments are not about debate.org. Finally, it is not a 'direct' suggestion, the webmaster must go through a lot of steps just to get to the comments. A direct suggestion would be talking to him/her or sending an email to him/her.

Second, the search button is flawed on this site. Go search debate.org, I dare you. I found this debate, one of my others about this site, 2 about the tournement, and the rest had nothing to do with the site at all. In order for this argument to apply, the search function should be revamped.

Third, the webmasters can always take suggestions. They are, as I assume, doing a fine job, but their goal is to make it best for us users. So, in order to reach that goal, they will take suggestions, but there is no way to see these debates becuase they get wiped off the home screen in a day.

3. I am going to drop this argument, I feel that my above two points are strong enough for you to vote PRO.

I await my opponent's response.
beem0r

Con

First, my opponent attacks my definition of technology, claiming that debate.org does not fit under its umbrella.

As far as the definition problem goes, my opponent did in fact list a definition where debate.org fits perfectly.

"2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group."

He then states "Debate.org is not an electronic or digital tool."

I'm wondering what line of reasoning made him come to this conclusion. It is very much a digital product. It is very much a tool, even. I'm unsure where there's any room for doubt. Therefore, debate.org already has a category under which it fits. Just in case, though, I will be making a new, independent argument later in this round.

I feared my opponent would actually go use the search feature. Yes, it's not as good as I made it out to be.

Also, my opponent seems to have no idea what I meant by the 'comment box'. It's the link at the bottom of the page that says 'comment box'. This directly sends suggestions to the staff. It's literally the very bottom of the page.
Here is a quote from one of the debate.org official announcements:
"As we began developing the V3.0, your suggestions continued to flood our mailboxes, and we did our best to take the feature requests the community was seeking, and add them to the development schedule."

After reading that, it should be obvious that the main method of suggesting new features is in fact by emailing the team via the 'comment box.' (or via another direct email method, it's irrelevant.)

Therefore, there is no new functionality added when it comes to suggesting things to the staff. In fact, a debate would be a much bulkier and less straightforward way to suggest things to the staff.

Also, things like tournament updates should not be made debates. The webmaster even said in a comment on the last tourney update debate, "Hi Debaters,

I will likely be moving this announcement to the main page and then deleting this debate.

-Webmaster"

This is of course because an announcement should be an announcement, not a debate.

And now, since I've addressed all my opponent's points, I will make another, independent argument.

A new category called "debate.org" should not be made, since the staff needs to work on implementing the next version of the site, not changing the code for the current one. Not only that, but the advantages of the new category would be gone once the next version of the site is out, since there would now be a forum structure, etc. Therefore, adding a new category would be a foolish endeavor. They would have to mess with the layout of the top bar (it wouldn't fit right now), they'd have to mess with the database structure, they'd have to mess with debate creation pages, searching, etc. They do not need to waste their time with this when a much more important update is currently being implemented. They need to focus on implementing 3.0, not on some insignificant project that helps little to none.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

I will go over every arguement, and prove to you voters why I win this debate.

First, my opponent claims that Debate.org fits under my definition of a digital tool. Inevitably, this is incorrect. A 'tool' is a material object. A website is definitly not a material object. Althought this computer may be digital, the keyboard is digital, my speakers are digital, etc., THIS WEBSITE IS NOT. This argument can NOT even APPLY; a website is not something you can touch, therefore it is not a material, digital, or electronic object.

All in all, this argument PROVES that debate.org is not technology. The CON side only argues one definition, hence all of the other definitions still disprove that debate.org is technology. Plus, just now, I have proven that this definition does too. THEREFORE, A DEBATE.ORG CATAGORY IS ESSENTIAL. There is no place to put these debates, and another catagory would clear up the confusion.

Secondly, my opponent drops the search function arguement, and only has left the comment box. But, there is one clear way to prove why CON is wrong: the point of having a debate is not only to suggest, but decide whether or not new features will be a good thing. Take DarthGrevious's debate for example (http://www.debate.org...).
This debate protests 3.0, and shows the flaws in them. This sends an effective message that some people like debate.org the way it is. However, debates like these could make a person change their mind: even in the case of the webmaster. It could weigh the pros and cons of a feature and it could show them what the people want, even more so than a little suggestion.
Moreover, if one person opposed something, they could send a comment that they oppose. But if a thousand people opposed, and only one person sent a suggestion, the two would be weighed the same. Having people vote would give an effective barometer of what people think of the site.

Lastly, my opponent attemps to create some offense after I pointed out that he has none. Furthermore, he claims that the staff should focus on 3.0. This arguement is almost laughable.
First, why can't this be part of 3.0? It seems that, according to the sneak peak photos, this catagory will not be in place in 3.0. So, this suggestion could fit very well with the coming of a NEWER VERSION. In fact, it would be even MORE CONVIENT for the webmaster to make this in the upcoming version.
Secondly, although I am no webmaster, I seriously doubt that putting this in place would be hard to do. After all, the webmaster has created 11 of these already, so it is apparently not that hard. Plus in 3.0, it seems the catagories are only designed like hyperlinks, which seem even less hard to do.

All in all, you can vote PRO for this debate. I have disproven all of my opponent's arguments, and extended all of my points which are valid for you to vote on. I thank you for voting, and I thank Beem0r for this debate.
beem0r

Con

This website is technology. Any piece of software is digital. Anything used to make some action easier is a tool. Debate.org is therefore a digital tool, as my opponent even noted as one of the possible things that could be used to classify it as technology. And it's definitely a product or system, the words used in the original definition. The fact is, debate.org is a piece of technology.

My opponent then states that even if debate.org fits this definition of technology, every other definition still proves that it is not technology. This is the most backwards thing I've ever heard. An automatic garlic chopper is not technology by every definition. It only needs to be under one definition to make it technology. Not ONE piece of technology fits all definitions thereof. It should now be obvious that only one definition must hold true for debate.org to fit under "technology."

Next, my opponent suggests that looking at debates can help the webmaster weigh the pros and cons of new features, citing DarthGrievous's debate. I can tell you that the webmaster has in fact seen this debate, yet 3.0 is still in the works, with all the said features. Why? Because debate does not always show whether the idea is good or not. Sometimes, people can argue for a side that should not win, yet they will dominate the debate. The voting results do not affect how the people at large feel. As Darth said himself in his opening argument, "I'll remind you that your personal opinions are not the standard of your voting, but which debater proved their point better." The webmaster has already looked at the features and weighed the advantages and disadvantages for the site, and I'm sure he's found the changes to be quite positive. People don't just implement new features without considering why they should or why they should not.

As I said, people's votes do not reflect their personal opinions, so it cannot be used as a poll. (Oooh, a poll, that sounds like something we'll have in 3.0)

Alright, I admit that it would be very simple to simply add the new category to 3.0. However, it would be nonsensical and inconsistent to do so. All the other categories are big umbrellas. As I said in round 1, "Debate.org" just doesn't fit among big umbrella categories like "Arts" or "Business."

Overall, I believe I have provided sufficient reasons why a Debate.org category should not be made. The developers already have superior, more sensible ways to get people's opinions. It is therefore not worth it for them to add a category whose debates already have a place and whose existence among the categories would be inconsistent. A Debate.org debate category should not be added to Debate.org.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Perhaps a poor choice in naming by the devs. I guess I'll go suggest that they change it. (Not by making a debate about it, either ;] )
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
oh whoops I thought you meant this
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Comment box is this, not an actual comment area of a debate: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
If philosophy can go under society, then quite a lot of things would go there too.
Also, religion would maybe go under philosophy, not the other way around.
Also, good luck. ;]
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
that could kinda go under socicety or religion, though...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Philosophy would be good too :D
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I like this idea. Most of mine have been about debater etiquette, but one's like this would certainly fit that description:

http://www.debate.org...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Lakeville votebomb
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 5 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Grey_Fox 8 years ago
Grey_Fox
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 eight-AM 8 years ago
eight-AM
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 livi 8 years ago
livi
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Grandma 8 years ago
Grandma
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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