EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Ede8 should have an economics forum

0 points
1 point
Priest of SwagPriest of Swag (PRO)

Welcome Everyone, to my debate with lars. Lets begin with some base contentions, in order to establish a base for flat logic....

Contention 1 : Economic Forums Attract Economists
Lets establish this right off the bat. Can we, as reasonable human beings, make a reasonable assumption that an economics forum attracts economists? I think we can. We have every reason to believe in such a simple premise. Have the readers ever heard o the law of attraction and passion? Its a social science law, that concurs that human beings will focus more energy on things they are passionate about. Applying the theory to Ede8, shows that if we have things that attract passionate economists, then they will focus more energy on that item. Be that debate or discussion. 


Contention 2 : Economic Forums  Attract Economic Discussion
Another truth, indeed. A forum dedicated to economic discussion, will effectively, produce discussion. If not, then a simple ban or warning solution can be implemented.  If this is marked down as a truth, then what are we left with?.....

Contention 3 : Economic Discussion leads to Economic Debate
Another truism. If we again apply this situation as a logical reality, then it becomes clear that economists will argue, and take their argument to debate. Is this all economists, or is it just some? It is some indeed, but regardless, we are still providing a low maintenance platform for some people to enjoy, debate, and have a good time. Which leads me to my final contention.


Contention 4 : Lars goal for this site, is to stimulate debate foremost
My final contention, and I base it on evidence of Lars himself. I will have you rely on proving this contention though. Ask him, he wont deny it. I have. He admits that the main direction of this site is debate. Therefore, he is more than likely to admit this in cross examination.
My flat logic has been firmly established, so I will attempt to prove that all these are connected, and not circular. If it is established that economic forums attract economists, and we know that economic forums create discussion, couples with the factual evidence that leads us to believe that discussion creates debate, it can be of reasonable assumption that an economic forum will stimulate debate. The main objective of this site.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-05-18 00:19:07
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I thank my opponent for opening this debate challenge. If he wins I pledge to make an economics forum asap.

First of all, I define ede8 to be a misspelling of edeb8, the site on which we currently are.

Rebuttal #1 - Non sequiter
Suppose there are two economists who love chatting about economics. Economist #1, furthermore, loves debating economics, whilst economist #2 does not. Economist #1 will come to a debate site regardless of whether there are forums or not because he loves debating. And while economist #2 may come to the site as a result of there being economic discussions here, their lack of interest in debate will mean they won't debate. It may even be the case that economist #2 sparks some discussion which begins a debate for other users, but economist #2 would not be involved in it, because they don't debate. And for those users who are involved, the opportunity cost would be having done some other debate.

It therefore does not follow from my opponent's logic that debates, or even economic debates, would actually increase. Economists who love to edeb8 are not currently stifled by a lack of a forum, because the debate platform is working perfectly without it for economic debates. In fact, we've seen some on this site already, and I think that's great! All of my opponent's statements are true but they do not logically imply or conclude more users will be debating or more debating will happen.

My opponent has the BOP, and he's missing a very important step from his reasoning. He needs to prove why these economists will not only join the site but also why they will give debating a shot. Willingness to participate in discussions does not imply willingness to debate those discussions in a formal setting, even if those same discussions are going to spur more debate-inclined users on to having some debates.

Rebuttal #2 - Attraction competition
My opponent's first premise assumes that economists do not have sufficient substitutes. We are all debaters, right? But that does not mean we are members of, or even attracted to, every single debate site on the internet. Similarly, there's nothing inherently attractive about an economics subforum, unless it's better than any one of the thousands of forums out there that are wholly dedicated to economics. The first premise is thus faulty - SOME economics forums attract economists, but not ALL economics forums.

Rebuttal #3 - "Low maintenance platform"
Might seem like a throwaway comment, but I take particular exception to these words. Edeb8 works precisely because we keep our member count dedicated to a smaller number of more closely-knit, passionate and awesome debaters. While we welcome anyone who shares our passion for intelligent debate with open arms, we can't just open up our server to unlimited traffic. Doing so would cause all sorts of errors and grind the site to a halt. We could technically use a whole bunch of extra servers at extra cost, but then the issue would be that the value of all these extra servers would no longer be debate. Mostly the site would exist for the purposes of forums.

Far more people like to discuss economics as a casual argument than would like to debate economics formally. The latter requires a higher standard of defending your own position. But many more people simply have an economic opinion that they couldn't defend in a debate. If suddenly 10,000 people with an economic opinion do come, which I don't expect, then it would definitely not be low maintenance.

My case #1 - Burden of under-used subforums
I made the science subforum in response to user pressure. 75% of the posts on it are me trying desperately to stir up some discussion on something nobody wants to discuss. It's a total waste of the site's resources and has led to neither more science debates, nor even more scientists on the forums. Everybody who has posted in that subforum was already there before the subforum existed.

It shall be the same with economics. Currently economics is explicitly listed as one of the categories for discussion under "society". In society there is only one single economics thread. Compare that with the number of threads for any other area covered (politics, history etc) and you'll see that there's less impetus to create an economic forum than any other aspect of the social sciences. This proposal is entirely pointless.

As an additional harm, when nobody except me if posting in a forum for weeks, everybody else thinks that can't be a very popular spot to hang out, and moves on.

My case #2 - Social issues usually overlap
Very few issues are exclusively economic. It's useful for a thread to discuss the wider social implications of an economic idea or policy, such as the history, the geography etc that underlie it. Limiting the subforums to just individual aspects of the social sciences serves exactly no purpose since all the issues of the social sciences will inevitably be discussed therein anyway.

My case #3 - Why economics?
My opponent needs to justify the impetus for an economic forum and why we want to attract economists specifically. My philosophy has always been that, while fostering debate and such, we also want to ensure that the site does not afford a special place to one particular aspect of debating. A debater should be able to debate any topic, on any side. Economics is very specific and opens the floodgates to creating many more, very specific subforums by this principle. Imagine if instead of perhaps nine subforums, site users had to browse through a hundred, to see the problem with that. It might be acceptable for a forum site, but this is not such a site.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-05-18 13:48:42
| Speak Round
admin: Why would economists come to our forum specifically, and not one of the dedicated economics forums on the net?
Csareo: Economists, like other groups, are on a debate site. I, a passionate economist, am apart of many economic sites. I am also on a debate community, so I am attracted to economic debate here, as well as there.
Csareo: Your main arguments rely on the faux that a economics forum will be a waste of space. How exactly does a empty forum cause long term harm to this site?
admin: That's not my main arguments. That's just the point labelled my case 1, and it's not faux. An empty forum reflects badly on the site, as it makes it look empty too. People won't discuss economics at all if it seems like nobody is willing to discuss it.
admin: With regards to those economists - wouldn't they, like yourself, be already on a debate site and not require a forum incentive?
Csareo: As an active economist, I can testify for me and others, that many debates have been stimulated on such forums.
Csareo: The point is to create an atmosphere that incentives debate. Your model requires people to formulate a topic elsewhere, and have them bring it here. Some of the best debates can be created by providing a open platform for said debates
Csareo: Would you mind, as brief as possible, how a forum, even as a test, tarnishes the reputation of this particular site? It hardly has a reputation to begin with
admin: No reputation is superior to a bad one, first of all. I think that edeb8 is in general highly respected among debate sites. Specifically, an inactive-seeming site doesn't do much to encourage more members to join compared to a more active site.
admin: While forums might stimulate debate, how can you prove that those same debates would not have been stimulated if economics did not have a dedicated, but a shared forum?
Csareo: Is it possible that people are more likely to post something in an economics forum than a society one. As I plan on citing, people come on to forums without a topic on mind, until they see the sub-forum
admin: Why do you think that has not held true for our science forum?
Csareo: Economists and Scientists are of lesser breeds. They are seldom seen compared to other races. This site lacks two dedicated scientists, but I do see two dedicated economists. All it takes is two active posters to stimulate conversation and debate, the sit
Csareo: Sorry, bug error. These two economists can start a wildfire that attracts other debaters to the scene. As for science, they are even more seldom seen than economists. Most people have an opinion on some form of social science. At least in America we do.
Csareo: I often go to forums riddled in economist grandeur. These usually happen to be the largest posting forums. Refer to this site....
Csareo: It can, be assumed, that the lack of a proper base for any form of social science, is actually pushing people away from the site. As a place of ill membership, I see little harm in attempting the institution of such a platform. Are we to shy away from tri
Csareo: Sorry, bug error again. Are we to shy away from a basic test. At least we will have a sample test for the future, when further forum tinkering may be of some concern among idealistic site participants
admin: Not a bug error, you're just hitting the maximum limit of the length for a cross-examination post. If you're making a longer point, split it up.
admin: Why do you think scientists are different from social scientists?
Csareo: Social science and life science are in different categories of scientific method. Social science is much more, as it is not decided through formula or equation
Csareo: Social science, consists of topics like economics, politics, and human interaction. Life science is biology, psychology, ect.
Csareo: The problem is, when people think of science, the first thing that pops into their minds is life science
Csareo: At the very least, you can install a social science forum, with a economics and politics subforum within it
Csareo: That way your empty forum problem, which I still do not understand why its a concern, is solved
admin: Do you realize that there is a social science forum already (known by the more common term of "society")? How does the difference between the sciences mean one group (economists) would be engaged while another (scientists) would not?
Csareo: Then how come economics does not have its own subforum. Does the common man know that society is supposed to be social sciences? Society and social science are entirely different topics. I would consider it a error if social science was your intention. So
Csareo: Bunching all these different groups together into one extremely broad forum, does not achieve the effect my resolution supports.
admin: You didn't answer my second question. Also, what's the difference you would make between discussing society and discussing social sciences?

Return To Top | Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
My opponent appears to have given up on his quest for an economics subforum. I hope this hasn't all just been a waste of my time.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-05-25 00:09:10
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Priest of SwagPriest of Swag
I am hoping I win, so the economics forum will become implemented. It is something I find myself using
Posted 2014-05-20 13:47:00
Great debate! We should process all new site features this way!
Posted 2014-05-20 13:36:03
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-06-06 09:51:08
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Forfeits sealed it, but PRO's case wasn't convincing enough for me anyway.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: None