Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Awesome suggestion to make debating easier

Zealous1
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 4:19:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How many times have you been reading a debate to vote on it and you have to scroll back up to read what the other team said? Let's say Con is responding to "Observation 1". Well, you can't even remember what observation 1 is. So you scroll up, read it a bit, then scroll down and begin reading again. It's a waste of time.

Introducing an idea to fix that. Note: it would require quite a bit of programming to accomplish.

Basically, it's like an outline guide. Let's create two given people. The instigator, Pro, and the contender, Con.

Pro lays out his case (don't worry about what it says, I'm just doing a random example.):

Observation 1. Cheese tastes good
a. Survey 2003 says that 99% of Americans like cheese
b. My opponent obviously likes cheese
Observation 2. Ham tastes terrible
a. Survey 2009 says that 30% of Americans like ham a little bit. The rest hate it.
b. My opponent and I both hate ham.
Observation 3. Milk is overrated
a. According to wikipedia, milk only has half the nutrients originally attributed to it.
b. Milk tastes so similar to water!
c. It's a long process to make milk.

Then Con writes his speech:

Observation 1.
Bla bla bla.
His points don't apply.
Observation 2.
1. bla bla bla.
2. bla bla bla.
Responding to his points:
point 1. haha!
point 2. No way.
Observation 3.
Bla bla bla
His points are ridiculous.

You're probably scrolling up for each point. But this is only three observations. It gets ugly when there are five observations on each side.

So, to fix that, when Pro creates his outline, he tags them by header 1, header 2, and so forth as far as he needs to go with his outline. Anything between headers is text under that header. Observations, being the highest, would be header 1. The a. b. c. points would be header 2. But it's not by size, it's by outline. It's a new drop down list that allows you to create new points and also USE previous points.

So an example:

Observation 1. Cheese fails -- Header 1
a. B/c this. -- Header 2
(1) bla bla -- Header 3
(2) trollololol -- Header 3
b. Yadda yadda -- Header 2
Observation 2. bla bla -- Header 1

It auto sizes them to make it easier to follow. When Con responds, his drop down list has all the headers. All he has to do is select the one he is refuting at the moment, and write something under it. The observation stuff is automatically filled in. So he's got exactly the same outline.

But now he has three responses to 1. a (2). So he can ADD his own part of the outline, header 4.

How many times have you been reading a debate to vote on it and you have to scroll back up to read what the other team said? Let's say Con is responding to "Observation 1". Well, you can't even remember what observation 1 is. So you scroll up, read it a bit, then scroll down and begin reading again. It's a waste of time.

Introducing an idea to fix that. Note: it would require quite a bit of programming to accomplish.

Basically, it's like an outline guide. Let's create two given people. The instigator, Pro, and the contender, Con.

Pro lays out his case (don't worry about what it says, I'm just doing a random example.):

Observation 1. Cheese tastes good
a. Survey 2003 says that 99% of Americans like cheese
b. My opponent obviously likes cheese
Observation 2. Ham tastes terrible
a. Survey 2009 says that 30% of Americans like ham a little bit. The rest hate it.
b. My opponent and I both hate ham.
Observation 3. Milk is overrated
a. According to wikipedia, milk only has half the nutrients originally attributed to it.
b. Milk tastes so similar to water!
c. It's a long process to make milk.

Then Con writes his speech:

Observation 1.
Bla bla bla.
His points don't apply.
Observation 2.
1. bla bla bla.
2. bla bla bla.
Responding to his points:
point 1. haha!
point 2. No way.
Observation 3.
Bla bla bla
His points are ridiculous.

You're probably scrolling up for each point. But this is only three observations. It gets ugly when there are five observations on each side.

So, to fix that, when Pro creates his outline, he tags them by header 1, header 2, and so forth as far as he needs to go with his outline. Anything between headers is text under that header. Observations, being the highest, would be header 1. The a. b. c. points would be header 2. But it's not by size, it's by outline. It's a new drop down list that allows you to create new points and also USE previous points.

So an example:

Observation 1. Cheese fails -- Header 1
a. B/c this. -- Header 2
(1) bla bla -- Header 3
(2) trollololol -- Header 3
I. No not really -- Header 4
II. You wouldn't believe this... -- Header 4
III. Fail. -- Header 4

b. Yadda yadda -- Header 2
Observation 2. bla bla -- Header 1

Now, when Pro types his own argument, he chooses the responses and goes through them one by one, writing his responses.

That part is the outlining part: it encourages using an outline and makes it easier to make and follow. It's one style of outline rather than someone calling them observations and the other guy calling them contentions.

But there's a second part to this. The popups. This ties in to what I said about scrolling up. The reason is probably because you don't remember exactly what the person wrote. What the popups are is that when you hover over one of the headers, it gives you the title for the header. (Eg. Cheese fails). But it also has three links.
1. Outline
2. Text
3. Outline and text.

1. Outline.

This one just shows all the headers under that header. So if it's point a. of Observation 1, it shows:

a. B/c this. -- Header 2
(1) bla bla -- Header 3
(2) trollololol -- Header 3
I. No not really -- Header 4
II. You wouldn't believe this... -- Header 4
III. Fail. -- Header 4


So if you click Outline it shows you all the headers under the one you're hovered over.

2. Text

Text shows you the explanation text under that header. An example of what it would look like:

a. bla bla
Text: This is an amazing idea because cheese fails but ham is amazing. The following two sub points prove this.


So if you click on "Text" it shows you the explanation under the header.

3. Outline and text

This is the same as Outline except it shows the text under each header under the current header.

All of these, of course, are showing last post's information. That way you don't have to scroll up and find it. Under each header in the pop up there's a small button that allows you to backpedal to the post before the last post.

I wish I could create a picture and attach it here... Maybe I'll do a little bit of Photoshop and upload it somewhere for everyone to see.

The last feature would be Cross-application. (This would be for when you're writing a debate post) It would be a button that, when clicked, shows you the whole round in a small pop up. You highlight the text you want to cross-apply under the current point, and click Okay. It saves that an inserts a pop-up related to the "Cross-apply". So when someone reads Cross-apply bla bla and hovers over it, it shows the text that the writer had highlighted in the pop up. It can be really hard to find what the person is trying to cross-apply otherwise.

Summary:

Basically it's an outlining, pop up, cross-application idea. You can easily create outlines that have certain sizes for each heading. Then it encourages your opponent to use this outline. If both sides use it correctly, it improves the voter's experience. I don't know about you, but reading through walls of text can get annoying. It also destroys the need to quote your opponent and thus waste your characters.

A little warning would pop up when you click add reply if you didn
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 4:29:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That would take a lot of programming and would only cover a few debates. Also, if the person trying to make the points did such a poor job that you can't remember them 5 minutes later, I think that says more of them, than the debating format.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zealous1
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 6:14:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 4:29:57 PM, OreEle wrote:
That would take a lot of programming and would only cover a few debates. Also, if the person trying to make the points did such a poor job that you can't remember them 5 minutes later, I think that says more of them, than the debating format.

1. Did I say it wouldn't take a lot of programming?

2. Actually it could be made to cover a lot, not just a few.

3. It's hard to remember 5 observations from each debater with several sentences under them if you're not the one debating. When I vote, I analyze each sentence to see if it adequately responded to the argument. That would be much easier with this system.

This site is actually quite close to perfect. If the programmers have time, they can make this.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 6:20:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 6:14:20 PM, Zealous1 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 4:29:57 PM, OreEle wrote:
That would take a lot of programming and would only cover a few debates. Also, if the person trying to make the points did such a poor job that you can't remember them 5 minutes later, I think that says more of them, than the debating format.

1. Did I say it wouldn't take a lot of programming?

Yes you did, I was agreeing with it and re-affirming it.


2. Actually it could be made to cover a lot, not just a few.

A lot of people do debates more like speeches (like myself, I always type it out as I would say it in person). I would probably never use something like this, as if I need to reference a particular point, I quote that point.


3. It's hard to remember 5 observations from each debater with several sentences under them if you're not the one debating. When I vote, I analyze each sentence to see if it adequately responded to the argument. That would be much easier with this system.

This site is actually quite close to perfect. If the programmers have time, they can make this.

Well, it is always better to have more options. I think the best course would be to submit it to the owners to consider.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zealous1
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 7:26:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 6:20:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/18/2011 6:14:20 PM, Zealous1 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 4:29:57 PM, OreEle wrote:
That would take a lot of programming and would only cover a few debates. Also, if the person trying to make the points did such a poor job that you can't remember them 5 minutes later, I think that says more of them, than the debating format.

1. Did I say it wouldn't take a lot of programming?

Yes you did, I was agreeing with it and re-affirming it.


2. Actually it could be made to cover a lot, not just a few.

A lot of people do debates more like speeches (like myself, I always type it out as I would say it in person). I would probably never use something like this, as if I need to reference a particular point, I quote that point.


3. It's hard to remember 5 observations from each debater with several sentences under them if you're not the one debating. When I vote, I analyze each sentence to see if it adequately responded to the argument. That would be much easier with this system.

This site is actually quite close to perfect. If the programmers have time, they can make this.

Well, it is always better to have more options. I think the best course would be to submit it to the owners to consider.

How do I submit it?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 11:43:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It might actually be easier to program than you think. If they set it up so that we select the arguments we are referring to within the debate argument form, the code is the same as that used on pdf and html outlines, and most notably on Wikipedia content outlines. A Wikibooks example: http://en.wikibooks.org...
Clicking the "Introduction" link in the outline adds the #Introduction tag to the URL. In the same way, debate argument tagging could operate on a numerical system, so that points on the page are tagged as #1, #2, etc., as the debate goes on.

The addition of tagging to the interface would be easy; a button in the rich text pane would allow text highlighted either in your argument or in previous arguments to be referenced within the selected text.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Zealous1
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 12:50:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 11:43:20 AM, wjmelements wrote:
It might actually be easier to program than you think. If they set it up so that we select the arguments we are referring to within the debate argument form, the code is the same as that used on pdf and html outlines, and most notably on Wikipedia content outlines. A Wikibooks example: http://en.wikibooks.org...
Clicking the "Introduction" link in the outline adds the #Introduction tag to the URL. In the same way, debate argument tagging could operate on a numerical system, so that points on the page are tagged as #1, #2, etc., as the debate goes on.

The addition of tagging to the interface would be easy; a button in the rich text pane would allow text highlighted either in your argument or in previous arguments to be referenced within the selected text.

Then there's hope for this suggestion? Cool! What about the pop up thing? That's the main part of it.