Csareo's proposal for debate comments

So informed by Csareo's idea of debate as a tool for learning more about topics he wants to change the word "comments" to "discussion".

Discuss.

admin: Here's our chat log
Things said by the floor aren't factored into the decision. It's like comments but they give it a different name and position it next to the rounds
2014-10-12 22:19:04
adminIn that case why have them
2014-10-12 22:19:25
adminIf you were to change "comments" into "Floor discussion" then you would have a lot more discussion and learning about the resolution at hand
2014-10-12 22:19:46
adminEither they have some input into the debate or they are not encouraged to argue there. It's a dichotomy.
2014-10-12 22:20:09
adminTo elaborate more on the topic. When people are actually giving deep thought and anaylisis in the comment section, the debate becomes more real
2014-10-12 22:20:27
adminWhy?
2014-10-12 22:20:42
adminThe comments aren't apart of the judging in the debate. They're comments with a different name
2014-10-12 22:20:50
adminI'm proposing you change the word comments to "floor discussion"
2014-10-12 22:21:01
adminI think that encourages people to discuss the topic and not the debate
2014-10-12 22:21:25
adminWho care's if they discuss the topic. The point of debates is to encourage discussion on important topics
2014-10-12 22:21:47
adminWrichriw said it all the time. I wish more people would discuss my debates and become active participants
2014-10-12 22:22:23
adminI think the point of debates is to have fun. You're never going to settle an important topic with a debate.
2014-10-12 22:22:26
adminDoesn't it concern you that active participants basically devalue your argument?
2014-10-12 22:23:04
adminWhat's said in the "Floor discussion" should have nothing to do with the final outcome of the debate. It is to encourage deeper thought and discussion
2014-10-12 22:23:11
adminI want members to participate in discussion on the topic, not discussion on the debate
2014-10-12 22:23:40
adminYou sound like one of those people who'd be interested in using debating as a tool for investigation ie what side is "right"
2014-10-12 22:24:29
adminIf I'm debating "Boko Haram should not be payed ransom", the value of the debate is improved when there's a bustling discussion developing in the comments
2014-10-12 22:24:40
adminWhy?
2014-10-12 22:24:54
adminI fully acknowledge the competitiveness and recreational side of debating, but many people also use "debating" to learn, study, and become smarter.
2014-10-12 22:25:27
adminWhy can't we cater to both sides
2014-10-12 22:25:37
adminI think discussion is valuable in itself, and when people are actually discussing what is being said and the arguments I'm making, I feel they served a greater purpose than being a means to winning
2014-10-12 22:26:19
adminWell learning is definitely an incidental benefit. You don't need to cater to either side. But I think the greater purpose that debating teaches is not what to think but how to think.
2014-10-12 22:27:07
adminYou don't give much signifigance to the resolution itself. Yeah, debating for many people can change how they thing, but for a lot of people like me, it often changes what we believe
2014-10-12 22:27:55
adminWhich we can again cater to both preferences
2014-10-12 22:28:13
adminI wish every debate had a highly intelligent discussion developing in the comment section
2014-10-12 22:28:45
adminI agree there should be intelligent discussion along with intelligent debating, I just want the two kept apart. People confuse them.
2014-10-12 22:29:47
adminIf it is made crystal clear what is said in the comments doesn't affect the debate, there's no room for confusion
2014-10-12 22:30:27
adminDebates now are a slab that we talk about before they start, and give a meaningless vote once they end
2014-10-12 22:30:54
adminChanging comments to "floor discussion" would be a major improvement, and might make activity levels healthy again
2014-10-12 22:31:38
adminJust to follow up on my thoughts on earlier, in many formal debates, the audience do get to ask the debaters questions
2014-10-12 22:42:18
adminLook, anything that one shouldn't put an elo score on probably doesn't belong as a debate
2014-10-12 22:43:05
adminThat's not to say one can't have those discussions, but they need to be kept seperate
2014-10-12 22:43:39
adminWhy?
2014-10-12 22:43:47
adminYou can't put a elo on comments, so why should discussions be kept away
2014-10-12 22:44:09
adminTo be fair, the discussion is separate. It's in an entirely different tab than the actual debate
2014-10-12 22:44:34
adminBecause debate for me is a skill, like rock climbing or tennis. This is why so much of edeb8 is catered to helping people improve as debaters.
2014-10-12 22:45:17
adminThe argument on changing the name really comes down to "meaningful comments" vs "unmeaningful comments"
2014-10-12 22:45:32
adminThat has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. Discussion can happen with no influence on the debate
2014-10-12 22:46:04
adminYes but only when it's kept separate. And mind you, I'm not going to stop people using the comments as you suggest either, I'm just not going to endorse it.
2014-10-12 22:47:11
adminBut it would be wise for a debater to look for other people having these discussions, see if they can learn anything from them, and maybe apply it into their own debate. Discussion can be to the benefit of the debater, just as it can be to the benefit of
2014-10-12 22:47:18
adminthe community
2014-10-12 22:47:22
adminWhy must it be separate? It definitely shouldn't be apart of the debate, but I don't think it should be distanced all the way in the forums
2014-10-12 22:48:13
adminI'm proposing that there is a tab next to the actual debate, preferably in the place of "Comments", called
2014-10-12 22:48:42
admin"floor discussion". Where intelligent people have an appropriate place to say intelligent things.
2014-10-12 22:49:17

That doesn't look good. There are several comments I want people to take note of.
To elaborate more on the topic. When people are actually giving deep thought and anaylisis in the comment section, the debate becomes more real
The comments aren't apart of the judging in the debate. They're comments with a different name
I'm proposing you change the word comments to "floor discussion"
What's said in the "Floor discussion" should have nothing to do with the final outcome of the debate. It is to encourage deeper thought and discussion
If I'm debating "Boko Haram should not be payed ransom", the value of the debate is improved when there's a bustling discussion developing in the comments
I fully acknowledge the competitiveness and recreational side of debating, but many people also use "debating" to learn, study, and become smarter.
I think discussion is valuable in itself, and when people are actually discussing what is being said and the arguments I'm making, I feel they served a greater purpose than being a means to winning
If it is made crystal clear what is said in the comments doesn't affect the debate, there's no room for confusion
You don't give much signifigance to the resolution itself. Yeah, debating for many people can change how they thing, but for a lot of people like me, it often changes what we believe
That has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. Discussion can happen with no influence on the debate
But it would be wise for a debater to look for other people having these discussions, see if they can learn anything from them, and maybe apply it into their own debate. Discussion can be to the benefit of the debater, just as it can be to the benefit of

All of the above were made by me

Blackflag: * You don't give much signifigance to the resolution itself. Yeah, debating for many people can change how they think, but for a lot of people like me, it often changes what we believe

These are all the topics I've debated online, Edeb8 and DDO.

"God" does not exist (CON)
That nationalism has a damaging impact on society (CON)
That there should be a legal age for using mobile phones (PRO)
Publically funded Healthcare (PRO)
edge is the awesomest awesome aswesome ever (CON)
EDEB8 is superior to debate.org (CON)
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process. (CON)
NZ should adopt a new flag. (CON)
That extremist political parties should be banned (PRO)
That sport leagues should not suspend players for off-field behaviour (PRO)
EDB8That the rise of a 'hookup culture' is regrettable (PRO)
That religion is a waste of time (CON)
That children should not be allowed out alone at night (CON)
That the speed limit on roads should be abolished (PRO)
That the police should carry weapons while on regular duty (CON)
Kimi is a superior cat to Louis (PRO)
China should NOT grant independence to the Xinjiang province. (PRO)
That the Queen of England should resign (PRO)
Gridiron Football is better than Rugby Football (CON)
The Battle of Stalingrad was the Most Important Battle of WWII (CON)
RESOLVED: The Falkland Islands belong to Britain (WODC) (PRO)
The Flag of Detroit should be the Flag of Michigan (CON)
That all forms of education should be free (PRO)
I'm going to win. 2+2=4 I'm the best. (CON)
Bearded Communists tend to be "better" than non-bearded Communists (CON)
This statement is false (CON)
John Lennon was a better songwriter than Paul McCartney (CON)
DDO is a better debate site than Edeb8 (CON)

The bolded ones are the ones that I accepted because I believed my side of the resolution and I actually wanted to convince others that my opinion was valid.
Of the non-bolded ones, I would estimate that I argued the side I believed maybe quarter of the time. At most.

My point is that not everybody does this because they want to convince people of their point of view or force them to question theirs. Some people - like me, do this purely because they enjoy the game. Matching wits with an opponent, trying to tie them in knots. It's fun. I've won a lot of these debates, and I have NO illusion that it's because my side was correct. A lot of the time, my case might not have even been the best argument for that side of the res - but it doesn't matter. All that matters was that it was enough on the day to get the W.

For the people who want to discuss important issues, I get that sideline comments might not be a big deal. But for the people who want the competition aspect of debate, sideline comments are like tabletalk in any game - unwanted.

Here's the crucial thing. If you like the competition style debate, table talk from non-participants ruins it if it happens before or during the debate. There is a major advantage to restricting that talk until after the debate has finished. If you were into the intellectual/educational side of debate, there's no disadvantage to also waiting until after the debate has finished.
So it seems to me that the logical thing to do is just to leave it til then. That way, everyone is happy.

As was pointed out to me though - that is NOT actually a rule. So I don't mind now.

Well, it'll still annoy me and I won't be able to bring myself to do it on any of your debates - but I accept that it will happen.
I see absolutely NO NEED to change the name of the comments section to "discussion". That will not change a single thing. It's practically change for change's sake. Just leave the system as it is.

nzlockie: This is pretty much what I think too.

My point is that not everybody does this because they want to convince people of their point of view or force them to question theirs. Some people - like me, do this purely because they enjoy the game. Matching wits with an opponent, trying to tie them in knots. It's fun. I've won a lot of these debates, and I have NO illusion that it's because my side was correct. A lot of the time, my case might not have even been the best argument for that side of the res - but it doesn't matter. All that matters was that it was enough on the day to get the W.
That's great, but you give little credit to the topic itself. Why do people debate? Debating was born out of a need to understand and progress our understanding on topics. To prove a point. To make a point. While some people, like me and you, debate for fun sometimes, I've never thought a topic I took was stupid. All topics are important, and all topics deserve a degree of discussion.

For the people who want to discuss important issues, I get that sideline comments might not be a big deal. But for the people who want the competition aspect of debate, sideline comments are like tabletalk in any game - unwanted.
Then it's your right to ignore them. It isn't cheating to look at information and use it, but if you feel it is, then no one is forcing you to look at it. Debates are competitive. I get that, but debating does have more purposes than winning. Nor does what I'm proposing have any inherent effect on the debate.

Here's the crucial thing. If you like the competition style debate, table talk from non-participants ruins it if it happens before or during the debate. There is a major advantage to restricting that talk until after the debate has finished. If you were into the intellectual/educational side of debate, there's no disadvantage to also waiting until after the debate has finished.

The disadvantage isn't clear. You're simply stating it exists. If I say something, whether it is right or wrong, at the end of the day they're just words. Someone could make something out of those words or do nothing with those words, but in no way do my words disadvantage any user. They are simply there in the interests of productive information, and maybe, just maybe, to the benefit of the debaters. You act is if information and feedback is a bad thing to have. If you do feel having resources at the hands of debaters is cheating, then I'll be willing to give a lengthy explanation on why that's not the case.

Well, it'll still annoy me and I won't be able to bring myself to do it on any of your debates - but I accept that it will happen.
I see absolutely NO NEED to change the name of the comments section to "discussion". That will not change a single thing. It's practically change for change's sake. Just leave the system as it is.
Not true. The LOR is, while fully correct, that if the name is changed to discussion, then there will be more discussion. When there is more discussion, there is more learning, education, and feedback. When there is more learning, education, and feedback, there is a more intellectual community, and better debates.

I don't accept the premise that debating is purely recreational, just as I don't accept the conclusion that it puts any debater at a disadvantage.

Can someone restate the disadvantage a debater is put at, when people discuss the resolution at hand. I would like to refute it, and all the fallacies in between.

Blackflag: Disadvantage of having someone state an argument in the comments section while the debate is going on.

Resolution: 2+2=4

PRO argues that two units added to two further units equals a sum total of four units.
CON is stumped. They can't think of any way around this. Uh oh, they are going to lose this debate.

THIRD PARTY comments in the comments section: "This is funny. If I use Modulo arithmetic then I can make 2 + 2 equal 1!

CON immediately googles "Modulo Arithmetic" and posts his round proving that two units added to two further units actually equals one unit. Yay he wins!

The problem here is that Con has now won a debate, not through his own skill or knowledge, but because somebody has handed him the answer. Disadvantage PRO because he loses where he was going to win. Disadvantage CON because he gets a little more used to relying on someone else for information instead of looking for it himself.

You will argue that PRO deserved to lose since his side of the resolution was impossible to win, it was objectively false. It shouldn't matter that CON didn't know that, his side deserved to win - not because THEY deserved to win, but because they happened to be on the side which had the true side of the resolution.

My problem with that is that you've removed all credit from the debaters. Part of the credit for CON's win now goes to the third party who pointed out the missing bit of information that he needed. That makes a mockery of the winner. In fact, PRO was the better debater. He came up with and presented his argument all by himself. He has more skill than CON who had to be helped.

Now this is how it COULD have gone down:
Resolution: 2+2=4

PRO argues that two units added to two further units equals a sum total of four units.
CON is stumped. They can't think of any way around this. Uh oh, they are going to lose this debate. And they do.

Now that the debate has finished, THIRD PARTY comments in the comments section: "Hey CON, check this out. If I use Modulo arithmetic then I can make 2 + 2 equal 1!
CON immediately googles "Modulo Arithmetic", sees that THIRD PARTY is right and learns something for next time.

The finished result better reflects the skill of the respective debaters with the guy who presents the better researched argument, winning. CON loses, but has learned a valuable lesson about maths and research. Disadvantage - no one.

The other side is to do with the traps. That one is a little trickier to post an example simply, but suppose one were to present an argument that the starting domino was more important than a middle domino. It's a twist on the normal argument, CON is going to have to take a closer look at this angle to see if his usual defense holds up.

THIRD PARTY chips from the sideline and points out that some of the minor claims made by PRO are actually factually false. CON's brain has not fully engaged yet, he sees that THIRD PARTY has a point and decides to chase the rabbit trail. It sounds good to him.

PRO then points out that while factually questionable, those claims don't actually change the big picture - that the starting domino is more important than the middle one. Oh dear. He's right and now it's too late for CON to submit a new argument! The debate is finishing!
If only he'd thought a little harder and argued that the middle domino was at a crossroads and had the ability to decide the outcome depending on which way it fell! That would have been a much stronger argument! Oh well, too late now. If only they hadn't been led astray by PRO's misleading picture and THIRD PARTY's distracting comments!

In this case it is disadvantage CON because had they been allowed to think for themselves without suggestions they hadn't asked for they might have spotted the trap and negotiated it. Bugger.

You will argue that it is not a disadvantage because CON shouldn't have listened to sideline comments from people who were only mildly invested in the debate, but you can hopefully see why he would feel aggrieved. Again, waiting until the debate was over to point out those inaccuracies would not disadvantage either side and would still allow for constructive education to take place.

On re-reading, it occurs to me that I've gotten sidetracked AGAIN.

This thread is whether "Comments" should be changed to "Floor Discussion". Your contention is that simply changing the name will stimulate more comments.

I have four questions:
- Do you have any proof for this or is this just a guess?
- Is more discussion a good thing?
- Do we have a lack of discussion at the moment?
- Do you disagree with Admin's earlier comment that people who are going to judge should abstain from these kinds of comments before or during the debate?

Disadvantage of having someone state an argument in the comments section while the debate is going on.

Resolution: 2+2=4

PRO argues that two units added to two further units equals a sum total of four units.
CON is stumped. They can't think of any way around this. Uh oh, they are going to lose this debate.

THIRD PARTY comments in the comments section: "This is funny. If I use Modulo arithmetic then I can make 2 + 2 equal 1!
I fully encourage users to use any arguments and resources put at their disposal. The problem is that this resolution is a truism, and a truism isn't a proper topic for a debate.
I have seen someone actually strike down 2 + 2 = 4, so the argument, while better, is more of a challenge.

The problem here is that Con has now won a debate, not through his own skill or knowledge, but because somebody has handed him the answer. Disadvantage PRO because he loses where he was going to win. Disadvantage CON because he gets a little more used to relying on someone else for information instead of looking for it himself.
That's false. Through research and using the tools at his disposal he has expanded his knowledge to now include arguments that can help him in his debate. Do you concede that users should research for their debate, yea or nay? If so, then would you also concede that the integrity of a debate is violated when one debater wins on false arguments? Furthermore, if an argument is on a non-truism topic, like "Boko Haram should not be payed ransoms", then would you concede that there is more than one argument to make for either case?

My problem with that is that you've removed all credit from the debaters. Part of the credit for CON's win now goes to the third party who pointed out the missing bit of information that he needed. That makes a mockery of the winner. In fact, PRO was the better debater. He came up with and presented his argument all by himself. He has more skill than CON who had to be helped.
It isn't a bad thing, is it? All knowledge and information can be traced back to a third party. Entire arguments have been based off of my interpretations of Zeno of Citium.
This site's primary purpose is to progress in our skill, and I'm sorry to say, this isn't the best site for a competitive culture. That would be DDO.

That's not to say I don't understand the want for recreational and competitive debate. My contention is that discussion actually makes debate more competitive.
Do you concede that information can both be used to better a case, and refine a case? If so, then why would factual information or opinion favor either side?

I'll respond to the other posts when I have more available time.

Blackflag: No need to respond on my account. I'm not that interested in continuing this discussion. I'm comfortable that we understand eachother's perspectives and I don't see anything to be gained by repeating the same things over and over.

Its unfortunate for me as it does remove one of the aspects of debate that I've been enjoying the most, but I accept it.
Please do respect the fact that I am on record as asking for you, or anyone to NEVER give me unsolicited advice or information in the comments section of any of my debates.
Admin has said that that is my right and I'm claiming it now for perpetuity.

Blackflag: You remind me of that edeb8 critic I posted the email convo of in the site blog.

The way I learnt debating - and I think in America it's different for a lot of people - is that it's not about who is objectively "right", but which debater can construct the better argument. As such it should be perfectly possible to win a debate with no research at all. Over here the "no research" rule is in fact strictly enforced in competitive debate, as it is in major international tournaments. The normalcy of research in internet debating is in fact surprisingly unique and is one part of it that I'm not so much a fan of, because I think it gives a false impression about what debating achieves. This is particularly true in this part of the world.

I can't even begin to tell you the ridiculous stuff I've made up to win debates. It's part of the fun of improv debating. One of the hardest things for many non-debaters to grapple with is this idea that the topic doesn't actually matter. What matters is the skill in presenting arguments. And I think that holds true for prepared debates, like internet debates, as well.

Now you're right in saying that such skills are not unique. But it's like going to a karate championship. When somebody does this awesome kick, that's not the first time in history that somebody has kicked. Still it's a skill that this person possesses that's worth acknowledging. Obviously a karate student who has others on the sidelines giving them feedback as they go is going to do better than a student who does not.

admin: Depends on where in America........there are various forms of where debates are practiced. I debate clubs should have as many random topics as possible with little to no research. However, in a philosophy club or a mock legislature, debates should relate to those particular topics with a substantial amount of research.

Blackflag: Because it makes it two versus one.