CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Downvoting
Ok, so I've been thinking about it recently, and I really think the downvoting feature on this site should be removed.
We had a discussion about this a while back (here) and I've been thinking about it ever since.
When you downvote, you are commiting the purest form of argument ad hominem. You are discrediting the person's argument without adressing any of their points. This means the argument is not really adressed, but the downvoted is still attempting to weaken the point. This is a clear example of the fallacy. On a debate site in particular, shouldn't we avoid it?
And upvote is fine, because when you agree with something you don't need to say why; you agree because of the reasons already stated in the argument. But if you downvote, there is no way for someone other than you to know for sure why you disagree with the argument made.
So how bout it Andy? Any chance we can get the downvoting feature removed?
Why do you need to downvote to achieve that? Can you not simply say "this is an extraordinarily moronic argument?"
What stops trolls from simply downvoting other's arguments to make them seem as though they are extraordinarily moronic? With the current system, your vote against them and their vote against you have the same affect. If people had to actually write out their complaints, those who had arguments that were flawed would not be able to successfully defend them - like how a debate should work.
Then give a one sentence response as to why the argument is moronic. Or ignore it. If the argument is truly moronic, then why do you even need to downvote it? Won't people simply see it is moronic?
Then simply respond to the argument with a sentence saying "this is moronic because ." or "Seriously? What about " or "This is wrong because ." If it's such a bad argument you won't need more than that.
And, most importantly, that does not take away from any of the points I stated in the description. Do you think the need to anonymously let people whoa re making moronic arguments know that their arguments are moronic outweigh the flaws of the feature?
Then simply respond to the argument with a sentence saying "this is moronic because ." or "Seriously? What about " or "This is wrong because ." If it's such a bad argument you won't need more than that.
I wish that would work, but the person thought the idea was good enough to write down, so they don't really let go too quickly.
Then why not just critique these abysmal arguments with a response instead of an anonymous downvote?
If it happens to be trolling instead of a weak argument, you can actually just not do anything. Ignoring trolls is kind of the accepted solution. If the trolling escalates beyond a certain point, then report becomes an option.
I believe that you can't have up voting without down voting. I believe it is a key and integral component of the process which moves the better arguments up and the lesser arguments down. If only up voting were allowed, you wouldn't see which arguments people dislike or find offensive, you would only see which arguments people thought were best. I do not plan on removing down voting.
BUT, if there is a habitual down voter, please let me know I and I will deal with them appropriately.
I think a way to maybe meet halfway would be to keep the way upvoting/downvoting affects the order of posts, but show the number of upvotes and the number downvotes. That way, we can at least address the problem of equating upvotes and downvotes.
Or not. The site is perfectly functional, and while I do still stand by my arguments against downvoting, it is by no means vital to alter in my opinion.
I do understand your concept and while it would likely be a good way of showing the detail, I do not know how difficult it would be to program and more importantly, I do not know if it could be implemented on any previously created debate. Since it would cost me money (which i do not have much of these days) and would take time away from my developer (he doesn't have much time these days), I will have to leave it as it is.
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I do appreciate it!
The whole point system needs an overhaul. Besides being ad populum in nature currently every post can get a point whether the contribution is valid or not. Perhaps have the debate only count up votes and down votes instead of every post.
The leader board could be a representation of votes received instead of posts or debates created.
Votes up or down should have a drop down menu or field to populate for the reason for voting. This will help people assess the validity of the score, obviously one could still spam votes either way without any real justification but people could see the votes and assess themselves the validity of the score.
Well, that's the problem. People have the ability to downvote, and it's anonymous, so even people who may be strong debtors will end up taking part in bad debating technique. This is partially why the feature needs to be removed.
But you name call too. You called that Amiritangshu guy an idiot on that debate about Malala. Although obviously it cannot be denied that you were right to do so. Perhaps it's time we stop behaving as if we're whiter than white.
Yeah, I completely lost my temper on that debate, and I would have been fine with someone down voting my comment in which I did that, as it would be, in my opinion, justified.
I said that I think it would have been fine for them to do so within the confines of the system that currently exists, but I also think the system should be changed. That's not a contradiction.
Disallowing downvoting is the same as "democracy" in "Democratic" "Peoples" Republics like former DDR or North Korea where the dictator always gets elected by 100% of votes, no matter what.
Not really. On a debate site, the number of votes you have doesn't verify your argument. As such, any counter to your argument is still viable opposition. I'm not in favor of silencing voices, merely making it so that opposition is presented in the way it should be on a debate site
Look, if you remove down-voting you have to remove up-voting as well.
A binary statement of dissent is as valid as a binary statement of consent. It's as simple as that.
Well, no, it isn't. As I said in the description: An upvote is fine, because when you agree with something you don't need to say why; you agree because of the reasons already stated in the argument. But if you downvote, there is no way for someone other than you to know for sure why you disagree with the argument made.
The only thing about this feature is, it should not influence the position or display of the posting.
Well, I think the logic behind that is that if a large group of people agree with an argument, it is likely to be a strong and central argument of the side. As such, it is displayed higher up. But does display truly have that much of an influence on the information at hand? Even if an argument is listed higher up, it can still be wrong or lead to more discussion.
More upvotes means it's displayed higher up because more upvotes means that the argument is supported by more people. As such, it's an argument that should be more apparent in the debate for discussion.
And really, does the order that arguments are displayed truly matter that much? It doesn't truly affect the content of the debate at all.
Well, no, it isn't. As I said in the description: An upvote is fine, because when you agree with something you don't need to say why;
No, it makes as much sense to explain your consent as it makes with dissent.
The ratio of consent vs. dissent is informative in itself.
More upvotes means it's displayed higher up because more upvotes means that the argument is supported by more people. As such, it's an argument that should be more apparent in the debate for discussion.
Then down-votes make even more sense, because it balances the skew created by the up-votes.
And really, does the order that arguments are displayed truly matter that much? It doesn't truly affect the content of the debate at all.
Now you just have given an argument for down-votes.
No, it makes as much sense to explain your consent as it makes with dissent.
You chose to cut off my quote right before I gave the counter to this exact argument.
When you agree with something, you don't need to say why because you agree with the reasons stated. You have nothing to add, so responding would be unnecessary and repetitive, but you wish to show your support.
When you disagree with something, the reason cannot be known by anyone but you. If you downvote, there is no way for someone other than you to know for sure why you disagree with the argument made.
Then down-votes make even more sense, because it balances the skew created by the up-votes.
So if an arum gent is supported by many and opposed by an equal amount of people, it is of equal importance than argument that no one votes on?
Now you just have given an argument for down-votes.
I stated that the order that arguments are displayed on the site does not affect the content of the debate. How is that an argument for down-votes?
You have nothing to add, so responding would be unnecessary and repetitive ...
You don't need to repeat yourself and then accuse me of exactly this. By this you only show your mindset. I've heard this a lot in kindergarten. And repetition doesn't make it one iota truer.
Mere up-voting is not sufficient, because you always have a different idea, no matter how small the difference. Down-voting is the inverse of up-voting just as down is the inverse of up.
No, but if something hasn't been responded to you can repeat it. And in regards to upvoting, if more people agree that doesn't make the statement true, but it means that the statement is more important to talk about it because more people follow that belief.
Mere up-voting is not sufficient, because you always have a different idea, no matter how small the difference.
That doesn't mean you can't agree with someone else's belief while still having your own belief.
Example: Person A says something like "We should have homework because it is necessary to help gain an understanding of material." Person B agrees, so they upvote it. No one needs to ask Person B why they uprooted, because it is clear that they believe we should have homework because it's necessary to help gain an understanding of material. They don't need to explain themselves more.
Person C, on the other hand, disagrees, so they downvote it. However, by doing this, all you know about Person C's position is that they disagree with this statement. Do they think homework is unnecessary? Do they think person A worded it poorly? There is no way to know without a comment backing it up. Most importantly, why do they think homework is not needed to gain an understanding of the material?
No, but if something hasn't been responded to you can repeat it.
That's a rather arrogant position.
Example: Person A says something like "We should have homework because it is necessary to help gain an understanding of material." Person B agrees, so they upvote it. No one needs to ask Person B why they uprooted, because it is clear that they believe we should have homework because it's necessary to help gain an understanding of material. They don't need to explain themselves more.
Absolutely B needs to explain consent with A's position, because B has something to add to it or has a different perspective on it as small as it may be. According to your argument, a mere up-voting is as worthless as as a down-voting. So you can only take away down-voting and up-voting together.
Person C, on the other hand, disagrees, so they downvote it. However, by doing this, all you know about Person C's position is that they disagree with this statement. Do they think homework is unnecessary? Do they think person A worded it poorly? There is no way to know without a comment backing it up. Most importantly, why do they think homework is not needed to gain an understanding of the material?
A simple down-vote might not express the full opinion of a dissent, but that's not something that can be enforced. A up-vote does not express the full opinion either.
I don't find it arrogant to ask for a better explanation if you are displeased with the one you have been given, especially if the explanation you have been given has not addressed your argument.
Absolutely B needs to explain consent with A's position, because B has something to add to it or has a different perspective on it as small as it may be.
Ah, but having something to add is different from a need to justify what you have said. Even if Person B has something to add, they don't need to give justification to why they agree with the original point, because the justification is within that original point.
Downvoting, on the other hand, always requires some form of justification.
According to your argument, a mere up-voting is as worthless as as a down-voting. So you can only take away down-voting and up-voting together.
Don't get me wrong, I never do it; it's just others do it and make it easier for my points to become relatively higher compared to their newly-reduced count. :)
Sure, it affects my efficiency percentage but since when did anyone care about that? After all, if I wanted to, I could just use alts to upvote my posts and it would be almost undetectable even to andy if I was using proxies and totally random names.
I could even spam in self-made communities, hidden from public view to get points for them just to down-vote people with.