Make rules about disclosing AI and enable open and randomized positions

there is a difference using tools to grab data for your arguments vs using tools that give you talking points.

What is the difference, from your perspective? From my POV, your sources make your arguments. An example would be I could say that capital punishment reduces crime rates, but without any kind of source backing me up, the argument itself is just an assertion. So I'm not sure what the difference between using AI to find sources vs. using AI to make arguments is.

To address the actual complaint about AI, though, I don't particularly care. AI is a tool, just like any other tool that humans have at their disposal. It's up to the person using the tool to make it effective. A lot of the arguments feel akin to the old "you shouldn't use wikipedia for research" line of reasoning. Like sure, wikipedia can be wrong a lot of the time, but it usually provides ideas/sources for you to get a better starting point to dive into actual research. AI, from my experience, feels really similar, except the level of stupidity at the moment is pretty damn high.

Well lets just say for example I am debating about wages. I have a talking point in my head that inflation translates to lower purchasing power with effectively means the laborer is paid less.

My opponent brings up a point of in 2011 people got paid X and in 2025 they got paid Y

Ok, Now there is an established data point on a specific date. I know inflation went up- but what human knows what that number is? Nobody. A search can determine that and I can reference exact numbers.

This is in no way the same as me dumping my opponents argument into a LLM and it spitting out the counter point of inflation that I had never thought of. One is using a tool to grab a source and say "CPI increased by 42.73%" vs me making a talking point I never would have made if I was not reagitating an argument from a clanker.

These two things are not the same. And if I was debating someone thats just regurgitating AI arguments at that point why would I not just go and debate that AI in the same way that I play a person in chess because I want to test my skill against a person- not against a computer.

I can just again say that I have zero interest in debating people regurgitating AI arguments. It would be one thing if both partys decided they will equally use such absurd advantage in the same way that there are chess games pitting computers against etchother. Its quite another if I enter into a debate and expect to debate a person but instead I am left debating someone echoing AI talking points.

In the short time I have been on this site this has come up multiple times and I flatly feel its rather disingenuous to rate peoples skill in debate as equal while you include people abusing AI as the same as people debating themselves. At that point may as allow AI in chess tournaments and call someone a grand master because they can use AI tools well.

his is in no way the same as me dumping my opponents argument into a LLM and it spitting out the counter point of inflation that I had never thought of.

1. No one's saying you have to use things that AI gives you. Half the time it's bunk anyway. That's the entire point of using it as a jumping off point for your own independent research.
2. I mean, you're saying that this is a bad thing and I'm saying "why is this bad?". If I ask an AI about a topic and it gives me a talking point I hadn't considered before, doesn't that just give me another avenue of research I can look into to expand my understanding of the topic, regardless of if I decide to use the argument or not? I'm not understanding the negative here.

Like, there are legitimate reasons to not like AI (the environmental cost being the easy one to point out), but saying that using it as a research tool is bad is pretty stupid. At that rate we might as well outlaw the use of Google and libraries.

Most argument is regurgitated data...In fact, any output is derived from acquired data sources.

Advanced data handling that we nominally refer to as AI is no different to a good book....Just swifter acquisition and transfer processes.

Though "AI" derived data is only any good if it's source data is accurate and verifiable.

having the positions randomized

I dont think that should be mandatory, because if it is, no point in me starting or accepting any debates. the best I could do is make unwinnable topics, and when someone accepts, I hope that I am not the one defending unwinnable position.

1. @Alyssa "I mean, you're saying that this is a bad thing and I'm saying "why is this bad?". If I ask an AI about a topic and it gives me a talking point I hadn't considered before, doesn't that just give me another avenue of research I can look into to expand my understanding of the topic, regardless of if I decide to use the argument or not? I'm not understanding the negative here."

Well to be blunt let me compare it to chess again. If I decide to train and learn new strategies and moves playing against an AI or using an AI to recommend better moves I am growing and learning and its a positive.

Now if I bring that exact same tool to a Chess tournament its a disgusting level of cheating. Make sense how these things are not the same?

@SatanLucy "I dont think that should be mandatory, because if it is, no point in me starting or accepting any debates. the best I could do is make unwinnable topics, and when someone accepts, I hope that I am not the one defending unwinnable position." (Regarding randomized positions)

Oh I absolutely 100% agree. I am just advocating for it to be an option. Like having 3

1- Player makes his own prompt with his own rules and picks his own side having a massive advantage off the bat

2- Player makes his own prompt with his own rules but challenger picks their side equaling things out

3- Player makes his own prompt with his own rules and positions are randomized equaling things out but with a slight advantage to the thread creator

Would open up some fun debate concepts and mitigate some issues I see personally in my short time here.

But yeah, very honestly at the very least there should be an acknowledgement prior to debate starting if AI is allowed. Or at the very least an option to null the debate if someone gets in and realizes thats what they have to deal with.

Site dev here.

Rules on AI should be hard established

They are, based on a community vote.

Open format should be allowed with options such as contender picking a side of the argument or having the positions randomized. I find it much more fun to debate any position as it demonstrates true ability in debating as opposed to having strong talking points on just one side.

That exists. It's called UltraRated debates. To participate in one, when you are creating a debate, set "type" to UltraRated. However, there are some requirements for those, including earning voting and topic proposal badges. Go to your profile > badges and get three of each to qualify for UltraRated.

Well as simply as I can say it- I like the site and would like to involve myself more but I see an issue here.

Yes- Community rules exist and AI use must be disclosed. Yet that does nothing for the person who wants to avoid debating with someone who uses it. They can only disclose their AI use after the debate already starts. That feels like a trap.

Would be a quality of life improvement to have that declared before someone starts debating and its going to alter tracked stats. Seems like user is forced to debate something they would not have consented to if they had known which is pretty anti-fun and something that makes me question how much I want to debate here with a 'gotcha' function existing.

Really cool to hear the other style exists. I will look into it. Although a less formal and gated format would also be pretty fun to exist.

You can add rules to debates you start, or negotiate rules with the instigator and they can edit the description. So you could have a rule that says "No AI use" or that specifies what exactly it can be used for.

Well to be blunt let me compare it to chess again. If I decide to train and learn new strategies and moves playing against an AI or using an AI to recommend better moves I am growing and learning and its a positive.

Now if I bring that exact same tool to a Chess tournament its a disgusting level of cheating. Make sense how these things are not the same?

This site is so much more akin to your first example than your second example. A chess tournament often has real and tangible stakes involved. If you think that 'rating points' are equivalent stakes, then I'd recommend fresh air and grass touching.

How do you do that? I only saw a join button and no way to challenge and negotiate rules. That sounds like an excellent solution tbh that could cover a wide range of the manipulation of the system that exists

Comment on the debate and tag the creator asking them to add/change a rule.

Would be super cool if there was a more formal way to go about it though.

The person proposing the debate is already at a MASSIVE advantage picking their side but also being able to uncontested set all the rules kinda makes a loaded system. You gotta recognize thats a bit of a turn off for people just looking to come and debate or avoid contentious issues like someone abusing AI in their debate without saying it up front.

You can accept or reject this feedback but I am presenting issues that make people more hesitant to participate in your community and could be changed quite easily to make a more fun experience that would generate greater engagement.

Most elo farmers on the previous site were contenders accepting debates from noobs who had written poor descriptions. The hope right now is that UltraRated debates will be a better measure of skill, and I would take the Rated leaderboard with a grain of salt anyway, since both instigators and contenders can game the system.

We'll have the next poll on CoC rules in a few months though, and we can always put this issue on there. Until then I wouldn't want to unilaterally go against what the current vote landed on. You're right that having the instigator set the rules up front can sometimes skew things, and there may be better ways to deal with it than what we've done so far.

Sense I have your ear I will say 3 bits here

1- Yes someone picking the topic and the side gives a tiny advantage

2- Yes someone picking the rules offers a huge advantage

3- If 1 and 2 are the case the person creating the thread should not be allowed to shift the burden of proof onto the contender

I have seen this in topics and its kind of a 'fucking what' sorta moment for debate. That a person gets that much advantage and then forces the challenger to instead of countering their position they have to prove a position?

Granted voting and analysis and such is not high in threads but that dynamic adds an extra level to slanting things.

And on a side note, you may get more engagement for the site if you shifted the default display of stats to the higher tiers as opposed to displaying the lowest tier stats by default.

Hell, I called one out because the debate was not even a debate and the winning conditions were not even diametrically opposed. By rules both could easy win without countering eithers arguments. Win, loose, or tie would not even apply.

Most elo farmers on the previous site were contenders accepting debates from noobs who had written poor descriptions

Being Con also helps with having last word, which in debates with under 3 rounds is deadly, and as Novice demonstrated, if you forfeit a middle round, you effectively turn 3 round debate into 2 round debate.

Anyway, cheating is point of these debates. the main point of formal debate is to exploit a weakness in topic which opponent didnt notice.

there are truly no balanced topics when burden of proof is on Pro.

Pro either establishes a strong position from start by definitions and topic, or he loses to competent debaters who accept as Con and exploit weakness in position.

What people seem to want here is to take away Pro's advantage in making start position, without realizing that would give a lot of advantage to Con.

Con already has enough advantage of first being able to not accept debate in first place, being able to have last word, and being able to exploit any undefined words, or contradictions with definitions.

In fact, being always Con and waiting for debates with weakest structure is probably best way to increase rating, and Novice did that a lot but he eventually screwed up because debates arent always predictable, and sometimes Pro turns out stronger than expected.

And as I said before, Pro doesnt really have big advantage in setting structure in debate, for two reasons:

One, definitions in description can be challenged.

Voters often accept challenge of definitions, even if those definitions are in description. So Pro must make sure his definitions are also from dictionary.

Problem two, Pro must make debate topic be able to be challenged, or no one will accept.

Sure, I can make a debate topic where I say "1 plus 1 is two", and I define "two" as "1 plus 1", but who will accept? No one.

So Pro doesnt actually have any advantage, because any debate structure Pro makes must first be approved by Con for debate to start.