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.
Feature request
I'm guessing that the reason we don't have a way to block people is that admin doesn't want to silence anyone. I have an alternative. Instead of preventing people from responding to your debates, how about letting them respond, but allow their reply to be hidden from anyone who has them blocked? They can still reply, but you won't see it. Everyone who hasn't blocked them will see it. What do you think?
because there are always some users who have nothing to contribute but like hearing the sound of their own voice.... it would be nice to not have to see their masturbation on the screen along with other users who actually have something to say.
Good if there is also a ban feature. The ban could be if it gets to an extent where it starts to become a really big problem and would only be for the debate creator. However, if an individual user wants to block someone and everyone else like what that person was saying, I think its a little more fair to also have a feature where the individual can block them themselves.
You have brought up an interesting aspect. We do have a problem where the debate creator can just completely silence an individual in their debate. This feature would help curb the debate being completely destroyed when all of the responders are banned.
I am trying to convince Andy that a block feature is needed. His lack of this feature is causing problems. There are some people on here that I want nothing to do with. They know who they are.
Dana, simply ignore them. They are being incredibly rude. That's not to say that everything you've been doing is great, but if you want them to stop bothering you, stop responding to them.
So what? She doesn't have to read they wrote. In fact, she is really good at that. 90% of the abuse she receives is from second chance responses. Responses where she was upset and responded over and over.
You're not paying attention. What I suggested was the ability to block people so YOU won't see what they post. Everyone else would see it. Only those who blocked them would not see it. So no one is being silenced. I shouldn't have to listen to someone if I don't want to. You got a problem with that?
Then why do you need to be able to block this person? All you are asking for is the ability to ignore someone. If you don't want to listen to someone, don't. Why do you need a feature for it?
You are still assuming that if a person has said things you don't think are worth listening to they will never say anything worth listening to.
The only people that need a block feature are those Who just want to discuss topics with other like minded people with similar opinions, and who do not want to be bothered by pot stirrers
This feature a) wouldn't limit abuse (we already have a feature for that, banning) b) can already be accomplished by simply ignoring the person who you don't wish to respond to.
The current system has a lot of room to be manipulated and abused.
And um, how so? And also, so what? Don't do it. If you do it, Andy will ban you and/or no one will pay you any mind.
You have a lot of faith in Andy. That's good. Unfortunately as this site grows he will quickly be overwhelmed. Already from talking to him I can see he worries about this site and issues with it. I can't ban a person. That is an administrative permission. Therefore no system exists to combat harrassment and stalking (which unfortuantely I have a user doing). Igoring a person only goes so far and only works if you cannot SEE what they are posting otherwise it is impossible to ignore. Your faith in the current system is well meaning, I'm sure, but clearly misplaced. There needs to be protections for the user and there should be options on how people can protect themselves here. If that can't be fulfilled...people will look for safer sites. Pretending we have systems in place and then commenting on a permissive based power held by few (if not one) staff member is a mute point.
Well, debate moderators can ban someone from a debate that they created. And if people are being truly abusive, Andy does have the capability to ban them from the site.
Igoring a person only goes so far and only works if you cannot SEE what they are posting otherwise it is impossible to ignore.
True, but if you stop responding to them, they will give up. If it's so abusive that you cannot handle it, then one or both of you probably shouldn't be on the site.
This site is built, in a large part, around a mutual want to debate/share opinions/argue. When people deviate from that goal in a way that is as hurtful as you are describing, they don't last long here or eventually give up.
This site has been going for years without this block feature. You joined 2 days ago. Why are you so certain that this feature is necessary?
Well, that means you're under the impression that a person who has annoyed you in the past will never be able to say anything of value to you at all. That also allows trolls to say, spam your debates without you knowing. I think it's better to simply ignore comments that you wish to ignore, and respond to those that you like.
I mean, what do you gain from this feature that you can't have already?
You would also have the ability to unblock someone, if you needed to see what they're saying on one of your threads. Another opinion site does it this way, and it works pretty well. Everyone gets to reply, but you have the option of silencing them, if you want to.
if you needed to see what they're saying on one of your threads.
Well, if you couldn't see what they were saying, how would you know if you needed to see it?
Also, we do have a ban function contained to each debate. I think that's fair, because that accepts the fact that even if a person has flawed behavior, that doesn't mean they will always have flawed behavior.
Wouldn't it be better to be able to pay attention and stop it when it gets too far? I still don't see the advantage of this over the ban feature already in place.
I'm not against the ban feature. I think we should also have a ban feature. But having something at a lesser extent where the block didn't affect everyone in the debate, just the people who were blocking and the people blocked, I think that works. I say this because if person A is annoyed at person B, but people C1-Z19 all like what person B is saying, having a separate block feature gives person A the freedom to be like "I don't care what you all think. I still think your a bitch. BLOCK."
I still don't see why that is necessary. Why can't person A simply ignore person B and stop responding to them? That seems like a much simpler way that doesn't make the assumption that person A will always disagree with everything person B says.
A debate community should try to encourage discussion, not encourage conflict between two individual people. If someone is losing a debate, for example, they could simply block the person. There are tons of ways that this could be abused by trolls.
Why do they need to be able to block the person? What is the advantage over simply ignoring them?
having a separate block feature gives person A the freedom to be like "I don't care what you all think. I still think your a bitch. BLOCK."
Without a block feature, Person A still has the right to say that. But it's bad debating practice, can be achieved without a block feature, and probably shouldn't be encouraged.
Without a block feature, Person A still has the right to say that. But it's bad debating practice, can be achieved without a block feature, and probably shouldn't be encouraged.
They have a right to say obviously (free speech), but no right to actually shut someone up. What if someone's feelings are just seriously hurt or someone is seriously offended by something and everyone is ok with it. Then you don't have to ban the person from the whole debate but they can just block them individually. I think it works when one person doesn't like something, instead of starting a ridiculous argument between two people. Then you have two people flooding the debate with ridiculous extraneous random argumentative bullshit that has nothing to do with the original debate, but instead about people hating each other. But not if people can block individually. Then there's less of an excuse to flood a debate with an irrelevant argument about abortion when the debate isn't about abortion or atheism or how I'm going to hit you in the face (I'm not but you get what I'm saying) in the first place.
What if someone's feelings are just seriously hurt or someone is seriously offended by something and everyone is ok with it.
Then that person can report the comment, send a private message, make that clear, talk to the moderator, or leave the site. When you go onto a public forum or site like this, you have to be willing to deal with people like that and situations like that. If the person refuses to listen or does not act respectfully to you, then they have a problem.
Then you don't have to ban the person from the whole debate but they can just block them individually.
If someone is seriously hurting someone's feelings or seriously offending someone and refuses to address or change the behavior, then either the person who is offending or the person being offended (or both of them) should not be taking part in that debate.
I think it works when one person doesn't like something, instead of starting a ridiculous argument between two people. Then you have two people flooding the debate with ridiculous extraneous random argumentative bullshit that has nothing to do with the original debate, but instead about people hating each other.
Well first of all, going off topic is fine in a any debate, so long as the tangent is justified. One of the goals of debate is to have discussion, so even if something doesn't seem to have connection to original topic, it may still be relevant.
In the situation you described, the two people clearly do not have a need to block the other. If they did not wish to engage in conversation, there is no requirement to do so on this site. They have chosen to continue discussion, and if the discussion has no connection to the original topic or is just insults, then the debate moderator has the ability to ban them, and no one else has a requirement to read or listen to the arguments. If one of the people arguing does not wish to deal with the other, they simply do not respond to the other person.
If one of the people arguing does not wish to deal with the other, they simply do not respond to the other person.
This is where your argument falls down. Some people are distracted by someone. Yes, I agree, we should all grow some balls. But if someone is going to be tempted, its very easy for them to have a block button. There's possibly a demand for it if your someone who is so bad at self-control and you don't want to become a troll in of yourself. Then it helps that person who has no balls and can't stop themselves from responding after a while, or will have very strong temptation.
I've said this a couple times in this debate, but there is a huge problem here: You are saying that if someone has said something you don't like once or has been abusive once, you assume that they will never say anything you like or always be abusive.
2) it actually stifles discussion... too much like censorship.
Except your voice isn't truly being silenced. If you think you have unfairly been banned, you can simply create a similar debate yourself in which you are not banned. Your ability to get information communicated to everyone on the site is not influenced.
once a person "earns" a place in my killfile, i would rarely look back... this is true.
but they have to EARN it first.
i have a very thick skin when it comes to internet "dialog"... after all, i came from sodahead.
[mic drop]
your argument regarding censorship doesn't really hold water... its like saying it would be OK for the state to censor your speech, because you could always move to one of the other states... i'm not buying it.
i have a very thick skin when it comes to internet "dialog"... after all, i came from sodahead.
Lol. But unfortunately, not everyone is resilient as you.
And even if they have truly deserved it at one point, that doesn't mean they will continue that behavior forever.
your argument regarding censorship doesn't really hold water... its like saying it would be OK for the state to censor your speech, because you could always move to one of the other states... i'm not buying it.
Ah, but a state is different than a website. You chose to come here and you don't run this site. And as I said, even if you're banned, your ability to get information communicated to everyone on the site is not influenced. If a state was censoring you, you couldn't get the information to the same people with ease.
And even if they have truly deserved it at one point, that doesn't mean they will continue that behavior forever.
this is true, which is why my killfile would likely be smaller than most, but the purpose of the killfile is not to throw someone in there because they said one cross thing to you...its a place for the conically stupid.
they know who they are.
also, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from editing the contents and removing someone if they somehow regain their senses.
the drawbacks of the killfile concept have been well debated long before this website or any other website was even conceived.... and the consensus was that it becomes self limiting as a person tends to add too many names, then they begin to limit their OWN world.
even if you're banned, your ability to get information communicated to everyone on the site is not influenced.
i would argue that it IS influenced.
by censoring someone in a debate and preventing them from making any further comments withing that context, you ARE influencing their ability to argue within that debate. You are silencing them and shutting down their freedom of expression.
by contrast with a killfile, you are only limiting YOUR ability to SEE their expression, while everyone else can still see them flounder and make their own individual determination as to whether they want to continue to SEE it either.
the other great thing is that the person who is 'targeted' by the killfile has no idea who, or how many others, are shutting them out.... it puts the fear of "god" into them.
That also allows trolls to say, spam your debates without you knowing.
If you have an alert button, or if someone messages you per-say that's too complex, this is easily avoidable. Someone would just "alert\" or message the debate creator.
I mean, what do you gain from this feature that you can't have already?
You don't gain more from it if your the debate creator, but if another user wants to block someone, and everyone else likes what that person is saying, I think it works at a lesser extent than banning.
That also allows trolls to say, spam your debates without you knowing.
if done properly, you will be able to see where the spam is coming from but not the spam
[troll says: (...)]
sort of thing.
Also, if you announce to the troll (in full view of everyone else) that you will killfile him, should he persist in spouting non-sense... and you do this consistently for all to see.
you build up a peer pressure situation where the troll fears that others may join you and that there will be no one left to "hear" him.
i can remember even publicly SHARING our killfile with each other and debating whether this user or that user should be included or removed.
What a great idea to have a free debate with all sides of opinion represented. Freedom of expression includes not only the viewpoints of everyone but also the manner in which they present their argument.
Actually that is not true. I have been to sites where those on the left have attacked those on the right with some very vile and disgusting posts, so yes blocking those kind of posts is justified.
The point is that left/right isn't exclusive. There are plenty of sites where those on the right attack those on the left with vile and disgusting posts.
Only after being attacked by those on the left. Look at sites like newsvine where they would not even allow those on the right to post right leaning articles, yet they would post, post after post attacking the right
You have absolutely no way of knowing that, so enough of this partisanship. Of course there are instances where those on the right attacked first, to imply otherwise is downright ridiculous. Both sides are guilty of this nonsense, so stop playing partisan games.
Are you trying to argue that everyone who is conservative will never say anything rude to a person who is left-winged unless provoked? Because if so... um... you're wrong.
9 TIMES OUT OF 10, the conservative will be civil and polite, the same cannot be said of those on the left. Well history kind of bears that out. look at the occupy wall street protesters. Of course look at the leftists who attacked the poor drive thru teenager at chick fil a
9 TIMES OUT OF 10, the conservative will be civil and polite, the same cannot be said of those on the left.
Citation needed.
Well history kind of bears that out. look at the occupy wall street protesters.
That's like saying "The liberals will be civil and polite, the same cannont be said of those on the right. Well history kind of bears that out, look at the KKK".
It's nonsense. Pointing to a few individual instances of idiots and extremists does not prove some sort of arbitrarily declared trend.
That response makes absolutely no sense as a response. You responded to the topic (and therefore the creator of the topic) "Why come here if you are just going to block those on the right". Considering how the creator of the topic is on the political right, there was no implication that he was going to block those on the right.
There are sites where those on the left attack those on the right, and there are sites where those on the right attack those on the left. That has little to nothing to do with the comment I had made to you and the response you made to the topic.
If your argument is "A blocking feature is needed to prevent those who would rather attack rather than debate", then there is no need to interject "right vs left" partisanship.
