CreateDebate


Debate Info

51
54
Yes No
Debate Score:105
Arguments:47
Total Votes:160
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (25)
 
 No (20)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(1742) pic



CD Members: Should we Create a 'Formal' Section?

CD Members: Should we Create a 'Formal' Section?

The idea here is to promote a separate section/debate format in addition to the current: (1) Formal  [new]  (2) Informal  [old/current] 

Now, (1) would be Moderated by other CD members who frequent the Formal section, intended on approaching more Academic-level/type debate as is seen on Quora.  (2) would be essentially what we have on CD as of present.  Each domain would have their own code of conduct, ranging from sophisticated to open (i.e. potentially quite unsophisticated). 

Practically, this could be implemented by the construction of a 'Home' Thread to the Formal section, which lays down ground rules as well as provides links to all other Formal debates/threads that are created.  Formal threads will adopt a symbol to distinguish them as such, for instance: [F] or [Formal].  Now, a 'Join List' thread shall be created in which all members interested in participating in the Formal option will 'sign' their name up. Then, upon the construction of such a debate, it should be made Private to the specified list of members and opened up to a pool of Third Party Moderators from the Formal section list.  If members of the Formal section 'ally' themselves, this will be very easy to accomplish.  

As for the refereeing, if a member uses overt Ad Hominem, such as "You are truly a f'cking idiot. That position is so retarted I'm at a loss for words--I'm simply in awe of your mountainous stupidity", then they will receive a warning, first. Then, if it persists 'x' times, the member will be banned.  Actually, one could be allotted 'x' fouls before fouling out of a particular Thread, as well as a running total for the Formal section as a whole (which would be larger allotted foul count, call it 'y').  Once a person reaches 'y', they will be suspended from the Formal section for 'z' standard time interval (to be determined--e.g. 1 month, ect).  If 'p' suspensions occur, then such a member will become permanently banned.  Also, this will apply to 'trolling', multiple alt-accounts in a single Thread (or even generally), ect. ect.


This will provide a domain in which members interested in engaging more academic-type debate will be able to do so without fear of having the Thread becoming 'trolled', or otherwise devolve into a completely counter-productive state.

Yes

Side Score: 51
VS.

No

Side Score: 54
2 points

I don't know if it would work but it sounds good. One way to restrict entry into formal debate could be to only allow people with 100+ points to their name (or some other number) to enter, so that new alt accounts aren't immediately permitted.

Side: Yes
1 point

@Mack

Good idea--a sort of pre-requisite filtering process.

Thanks for your input

Side: Yes
2 points

We would have to see but it sounds good. This would restrict people excon from gaining points by trolling or flaming people with legitimate arguments. However, you would need a vote count to say if the troller was actually trolling people, because one person shouldn't have the ability to give another a foul for winning an argument and the like.

Side: Yes
1 point

I would love a formal debating section and any breaking of the rules one knows exactly what to expect

Quora used to be great but has gone truly backward now as it’s gone absolutely P C crazy , while I totally agree with its rulings on personal attacks one is now given warning for naming and criticizing politicians , people in the media and certain historical figures ,

1: I received warnings for claiming Muhammad was attracted to children and I used Islam’s sacred books to back my claims up which made it more annoying

2: I also received a warning for saying Hillary Clinton was a nasty person

3 : I received a warning for saying Mormons buy special underwear to ward away evil influences, which is also a fact

Quora has gone to far stating a truth and backing it up can still lead to a warning so as to say the hurt feelings of some members

Side: Yes
NumberOne(445) Disputed
3 points

Quora used to be great but has gone truly backward now as it’s gone absolutely P C crazy

Has a problem with racists using its forum = "PC crazy"

Side: No
0 points

@Dermot

Yes--we certainly should not be taking it to that extreme. Rather, this is intended to clean up egregious abuses that are quite prevalent on this site as of present

Side: Yes
NumberOne(445) Disputed
3 points

Rather, this is intended to clean up egregious abuses that are quite prevalent on this site as of present

But you and Dermot are both two of the worst trolls on the entire site. You literally go out of your way to try to provoke other people and create confrontation. Neither of you belongs in the formal section of anything because both of you have the mentality of children. Whenever someone proves you wrong you literally take it as a personal insult.

I believe that the only reason you want a "formal section" in the first place is precisely so you can use it to provoke other people and then clap your hands in glee when you eventually have them banned. Twits like you are always on the lookout for new weapons. Anything will do, provided it doesn't involve actually learning what you're trying to argue about.

Side: No
2 points

That feature is already built into the system. All you have to do is create a community. You can moderate it. You can designate others with the power to moderate as well. My community is not moderated. check it out ;)

http://jaded.createdebate.com/

Supporting Evidence: http://jaded.createdebate.com/ (jaded.createdebate.com)
Side: No
1 point

@jolie

Excellent--thanks for pointing that out, as it may prove quite useful

Side: No
2 points

No problem ;)

Side: No
1 point

Hello x:

The changes you suggest may or may not have the desired effect.. But, why would YOU care? It's NOT your money that was put at risk to build the infrastructure your changes would require..

And, therein lies the problem.. People who have NO money at risk, have PLENTY of ideas HOW the people WITH money should spend it..

x, my friend... If you put your own money into a site that does everything you want it to do, I'll become a member and be your supporter..

But, you're a kibitzer.. A kibitzer is the guy BEHIND the ropes at a poker tournament, telling everybody within earshot HOW that hand should have been played, but NEVER puts up a dime of his own money..

excon

Side: No
xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@excon

And, therein lies the problem.. People who have NO money at risk, have PLENTY of ideas HOW the people WITH money should spend it..

Nothing I have submitted would require any additional funding. Rather, I am attempting to figure out how to use the current tools in place more efficiently to produce a higher-level site

Why are you under the impression this would cost any (additional) money?

Side: Yes