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.
I just got an idea that would work with the forums. After looking through some of the "Debates" I realized that there are a lot there that aren't really "Debates", but more like advice.
If we had a forum then we could have advice threads that might eliminate these from showing up as debates.
That's not a good way to look at the situation, especially if you're running a site like this.
Create Debate is trying to come out of Beta, and I think at least that CD has a pretty solid demographic.
You provide a function for people to use, and it works well but then you find people, and a lot of them that seem pretty independent, all using one function to do many things. Debates are being used as personal advice. This is a function that came from the demographic.
Now look at what the demographic doesn't need. Do people talk about great finds on ebay? Do people start debates on the maintenance of Wikipedia? Do people want private messages via CD? No, you don't see evidence of any of this because everyone knows where to find ebay, wikipedia, and myspace or their email accounts.
The point is that you can easily find evidence of many people using a single function to do many things that can be sorted into it's own function. This would be a good thing for the primary function of the site, to weed out these other popular functions and separate them. You don't want to drive away your users because there is a site that does something better. If it was really better, they'd use it already.
It's not like this forum idea is completely absurd and will eventually kill create debate, so why not? The demographic that is here to debate needs a new function, if it's not going to kill the site, purify the two functions and both functions will prosper in their own ways.
I know everything gets dumbed down to appeal to teh masses. It's to be expected.
Anyway, the implementation is good, which is what this site was designed to sell. I'm sure it will be quite successful with others who wish to license this software for their own use. Hopefully one of those will create a site which fosters real debate.
There are hundreds of packages to do all the PM, forum, etc stuff. The creators here were tackling something new. And while I congratulate them on a terrific application, the quality of content on this specific website leaves much to be desired for those interested in actual debate.
I think sooner or later (if not now), some sort of additional filtering will be necessary. This site suffers from the same problems as all sites which are centered around a front page with up/down voting (digg, reddit, etc.). As the site grows more popular, the "tragedy of the commons" sets in. Only a few debates make it to the top -- those focused on mainstream interests. More obscure or intellectual topics will get lost in obscurity.
One solution to this problem that I really like is employed by StumbleUpon -- everybody knows StumbleUpon, right? Well, you can add people as friends, and that makes you more likely to stumble onto pages they've thumbed up. Further, a personal "What's new" page is created for you that contains the latest page reviews from people you have set as friends. See how this solves the problem I mentioned? Everybody has a different idea about what quality content is -- one man's garbage is another man's gold. Marking people as friends is an easy way of creating your own custom content filter. Now, I'm not sure how exactly this would apply to CreateDebate. Maybe each user could set personal, subjective ratings for other debators and debates/arguments could be filtered according to these ratings. (Btw, while I'm on the subject I really don't like the term "Allies." It sounds too warlike -- like your forming a group for the purpose of battling another group -- debate is supposed to be cooperative, not competetive imo. That's why I haven't set anybody as allies -- sure maybe I like this person, but I don't necessarily agree with their worldview. Maybe "Friends" would be better a term?)
Another interesting internet thing to look at is Wikipedia. It doesn't have this problem because nobody cares about Wikipedia's front page. They just have one page per topic. Here on CreateDebate, when a debate falls off the front page nobody will touch it. But people keep editing Wikipedia pages forever. What if CreateDebate were more like Wikipedia? What would that even mean? I suppose the critical difference is that on a Wikipedia page you don't have up/down voting on every piece of information, but instead make a much harsher retain/delete decision. What if debates didn't have up/down voting? Maybe people could post arguments and the decision about what to do with those arguments could be left to the debate moderator. That's a pretty radical shift, but it could be worth an experiment.
Ok, so there you go, some random thoughts on CreateDebate and Web 2.0 in general. Gah, every time I edit this post it gets longer, I better cut myself off before it gets ridiculous.
It is a lot more complicated to use than CD. This is where CD finds it's niche. It's easily accessible, easy to use, and easy to keep track of. The actual debates are easier to understand too, than the forum-like debates found there...
Then look at the topics.
Nothing is out of place. They are all, pretty much, good debates.
I believe that it's just about who is there, and the system they have set up isn't bad... but it gets in the way. Also, just because there are questions coming up that suck doesn't mean that the site is no good. It means that it's BETA and there are many ways to fix that problem... the voting of debates it one way that we could get all of this shit off out of the way.
If there were a voting system set up for the debate topics, all of these people posting shit debates would realize that they have to compete with good debate topics, and I'm sure this would lead to a higher quality front page, and more people in on more important topics, AND would help draw new people in while the look/feel and functionality and organization of the site would keep them here.
I'm sure most of us here that actually give a shit about the site and debating, would choose CD over the other's if the site were more streamlined, feature-full and... most importantly, if the users were more critical (in this case, if the users were allowed to be more critical).
Honestly, I don't mind some of the "shitty" debates, and I know
a lot of people who get somewhat involved with them, I don't think that the "shitty" debates are the problem, but the promotion of these debates or the way that they get focused on the site needs to be changed. Just implement a voting system and see how it turns out.
well, you said exactly what I said, in a different way.
The interface/application here is unique and well-executed. This site is basically set up as an example of what can be done with this framework.
The creators hope to license the software to other entities who will use it for various purposes.
The fact that it's beta means that we are the test subjects.
The content of this particular site if of no consequence to me (and likely, the creators either). My hope is that some other site emerges which employs this mechanism and holds some sort of intellectual integrity to their debates.
In other words, I support this endeavor in principle, but in this current manifestation, I find it severely lacking.
And that's just my opinion, so if you don't like it, make up your own.
I just took a look at idebate. Debatepedia seems to be the closest thing on there to this site. It's funny, I just wrote a long argument in response to borne's comment where I was considering what it would be like if this site were more like Wikipedia. It seems to me the reason DebatePedia has higher quality debates is that it's much more heavily moderated and the moderation is done by intellectuals rather than all users. The problem with the site, as you mentioned, is that the interface sucks balls compared to this site. Perhaps bringing harsher moderation to this site would be a good thing. Or maybe there could be a second site with heavier moderation, and this one could be left as is.
Yeah, I don't know if you've noticed but after posting that I went out to the front page to hunt down some meaningless debates. Screamed cancer and tagged everything as "THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS".
I don't think the site needs moderators. It can haz it's pop-culture-related garbage, so long as people are active, that's fine with me. I still want to see a voting system implemented for the debates though. If everyone votes up the pop-culture garbage, Oh well, I guess it serves our demographic, which is what it's intended to do. Please the masses.
How about preventing people from asking who they should vote for? I mean, how should I know? I have a low efficiency rating! I had to go through pages of political stuff to get to the recent debates.
Case in point Joe! You do have a low efficiency rating but that does not reflect your ability to engage in a terrific debate. If someone were to judge your intellect or knowledge on that rating alone, some here wouldn't bother to debate you and that would be so terribly unfair. I didn't want to point you out so I'm glad you stepped up. I'd debate with you any time or day of the week.
I think I have a low efficiency rating because most people don't want their established view of the world to be challenged. On the other hand, if your mind is too open, your brains will fall out ;)
Also, for whatever reason people feel compelled to vote. Maybe it makes them feel empowered. Me, I'm like, "Well, if that what you believe..., whatever." I don't waste my time voting them down. For all I know they may be right ;)
In the short time I've been here I've never voted someone down for their comments on the other side of the debate. I've voted them down for being nasty, bigoted or rude but that's it. You're right about their "established view of the world" being challenged...but then, why debate? There are at least two sides to every argument and one never knows, it may very well turn out that they are right and if one is open minded they may change your take on the issue.
Add the ability to not only edit a new post but to also delete it. One time in a yes/no debate, I added my argument to the wrong side, and couldn't delete it.
A way to prevent repeat debate topics would be nice. I also wish that if there were people with low efficiency scores there was some way to indicate that. Maybe a red box around their icon?
Hi Kirstie1126! Repeats are bound to be there once in a while and most especially if someone has just joined CD or by others if the topic hasn't been brought up in a while. The debate topic may be new to a whole new audience as well!
Why, if I may be so bold to ask, would you wish to have people's low efficiency scores highlighted? What would that tell you? That they're not worth debating with or that they may not be as intelligent as others on the site? It's a very arrogant and telling statement which reminds me of "The Scarlet Letter" and the Jews in Germany during WW II who were forced to wear a yellow Star of David as a mark of identification.
Yes, it would tell me that they are not worth debating with. Or we could do it in reverse, and give a color indicator to those with a HIGH score. Other wise, what is the point of this number? We already have the reward points listed by our names, why can't we include this efficiency number, too? Frankly, I find this number to be more important than the number of times some one has posted some thing!
On a personal note, I don't appreciate being called arrogant and be compared to the Nazis. There are lots of measures in life which we use on a daily basis to classify people, this is another example of that.
The person's efficiency rating is there for all to see as are the reward points but you'd have to look at the profile in order to see what that may be. I really don't know what the purpose of the numbers are but if CD didn't have them, you'd never know if someone were "worth debating with."
I'm sure you don't like being seen as arrogant, however, there is an arrogance about labeling people whom you believe are less worthy than you. People have been marked through the ages and every time a person was marked, it was always to identify them as less than...
Actually, in the Olympics, we "mark" people as being better than others... so marking people as "less then" is not always the case as you say it is.
In the case of CD, we are also already marked, with the reward points... my whole point is that the efficiency score is more important to some of us than the reward points, so why cannot both be displayed next to our names and not buried in our profiles? I do not find this arrogant, and again, the name calling is not needed.
Actually, you know exactly what the difference is and to present such an inane counter is absolutely laughable. The notion that CD put a glaring spotlight on those who you feel are not worthy of your time in debating with them is not only arrogant but elitist! AMEN!
Repeat debates can have some value. When a debate gets stale it falls off the front page and doesn't get much attention. Thus new arguments don't get looked at by many people and the filtering value of up/down voting is lost. Also high rated arguments can become entrenched at the top of a debate, making it hard for potentially better arguments to displace them. Repeating a debate gives us an opportunity for a fresh start.
Something is wrong with the algorithms. I already asked Ludacris about it and he said that it will all be fixed when they launch CD2008. So hang tight Joe! You will regain your glory soon enough as the most provocative person on CD. [:
That's actually NOT a good idea, or at least I don't think so. There are too many debates that I see flipped to the wrong side, and not because the people on the "winning" side are right, but because they are backed by most people... You get what I mean? If it's a matter of opinion, you already sort of have this function by the voting or use of the tags... If it's a two sided, you have the problem that I mentioned up there, of having most (maybe) wrong people on one side, and few people on the other with better arguments.
Well my personal idea, if you looked at the arguments that I put in that debate, was to have an effeciency score, because you are right, if you have more people on a side then you will most likely have more points, but the efficiency score is not suaded by how many people a side has. It only matters on how good of debates that side's supporters can bring up. You see what I'm saying?
That sounds nice, but it is actually just a popularity vote, and unpopular people will be downvoted, and popular ones will upvote each other, resulting in popularity being the major factor instead of measuring the substance of the issue. But hey, whatever works right.
It's always the right time to change something in your life. I love this casino, I didn't like it before, the reason is that there were more losses than wins, but then I found a site https://casinosanalyzer.com/casino-bonuses/wildjoker.com that helped me win and more, I started getting good bonuses. I recommend taking a look.
Absolutely and the new casinos for 2024 are coming right in front of you to make your new year as exciting, thrilling, and lucrative as possible. Check them out at https://casinolandia.com/new-casinos/2024/ and strive for greatness.
How about the ability for the moderator to create multiple tags ahead of time so that people don't have to create a new one if they don't want to, they can just select one created by the moderator.
Or have CD say, "Joooeee" every time I join a debate (like in that sitcom, Cheers, where Norm would walk in and everybody knew his name and they were always glad he came).
A lot of this would be solved by allowing people to vote on debates. The issue of quality debates would be taken care of if it was used right. This works fine on digg, and I think it would be essentially the same operation. Even if it's not an "intellegent" debate subject, if people like it they'll vote it and it'll be on the front page. People could still go argue in debates that aren't that important or likable to others and it won't make it to the front page. This makes me think that it won't actually detract from the usefulness of CD's frontpage, only bring things up that are argeeable. So in short there's no real downside, only an up. I might be missing something, so correct me if I'm wrong.
I still would like to see a philosophy category, but that's just me. Even 99chan had a philosophy category and all of the *chans are imageboards. I think there's more to debate about in philosophy than there is to post pictures on, and 99chan's philosophy board was always pretty active.
Add the ability to shamelessly point grab, so people don't have to go through so much trouble. Like a big button that says Shameless Point Grab on it, and when you click it, it just adds more points to your side, so you don't have to actually try to do anything, or even look like you did.
The mini forum sounds like a good idea to me. In some of the debates it seems like people are just looking for an excuse to chat, rather than actually having a debate. A regular forum could be a good release valve for that.
You know there are a lot of philosophy IRC rooms that shoot topics out at the people in them and they'll debate until it turns into a troll party where everyone's just attacking everyone else.
Perhaps someone could set up an IRC room for CD? I would but I don't have anything that could act as a server... anyone else?
I think this is what the townhall's based on, and idk if that's still around, but I never see people there, or I never did... maybe just make that more accessable. I think that was a java based IRC thing on the page, so you wouldn't even have to have your browser open if that's the case. Just grab a varient of X-Chat and enter the channel.
The only issue with that is having a real-time joe cavalry...
Maybe we can flag debates we never want to see again. For example, on Netflix you can select not interested in what other people have found interesting and they'll never show you that again.
The reason that this website is dying, is because nobody is intelligent enough to post anything worth debating over. Also, banning Joe's arguments wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Here's an idea. Have specials every Tuesday, or whenever, like every Tuesday is clam chowder day, and make up some kind of debate or discussion on clam chowder, that way every Tuesday people can come in and just discuss clam chowder, and nothing else. Sound reasonable?
Get people to talk more. Some people already talk enough, but some need to talk more. Get these people to talk more. Some way to get them to talk more would be to encourage them, like by telling them they made a good point. Or maybe by complimenting them, like by saying "Hey, you're wearing some really swanky shoes today, and I mean that in a good way." That might get them to spend more time here.
You can threaten to close down, then people will be all afraid, and plead not to close it down, and then you can get them to do whatever you want, like spend more time here. Some might call that extortion, but so what.
maybe to make our profile more expressive friendlly, like to only show things on our profile that we want people to see. like i personally would rather my most recent arguments and messages were showing on my profile because i find it irrelevant to what people should have to say about my debates.
maybe some decorative touches wouldn't hurt on our profiles too. i like expressing myself through my page and my layouts and stuff; any page that i use is covered with things i think people would find interesting about me...the music i like, my favorite colors, my interests... [http://www.seemylocker.com/profile/tonicole]
i'm just one who's not for uniformity and for making things you're own, but that's just me. c[:
Make a mirror site with no javascript. None. Javascript is evil. No fades, pop-ups, delays. I don't want to hear my PC fan spinning up when I read the debates.
Ha, I don't think this js is so intensive though. I have a mac, and js sucks for mac or just hasn't been implimented right yet for it... whatever it is, too much js will crash anything that it's running in if it gets too much. Flash is like that too...
I have an iBook G4 (1.42Ghz G4, 1Gb DDR333, 32Mb Radion 9550 @AGPx4) and it handles CD like a rag doll. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it.
It's not too intensive but it doesn't add anything for me. I could easily live without full-screen fades. Content is king for me. Don't get me started on Flash.
I just clicked 'submit' and guess what? 'Submit argument without a tag?' just faded in. The 'Don't show this message again' seems to ignore my wishes. Grrr!
Yes, that's a problem for me too. No matter what browser I use, Opera 9.5.1, Firefox 3, Safari 3, it never remembers when I tell it not to bother me anymoar.
I know what you mean about the screen fades though. It is a bit unnecissary. When it comes to content, that's what the site is based on, adding something like a fade shouldn't detract from that. I don't know. I don't think CD's fade is anywhere near as bad as some of those other sites.
