Darn,
I think description 'is important, but the right to animal bear arms or America's other that the United States of America.
Eh, odds were good on each of us understanding what the debate was about.
Feels against the spirit of the debate to be obtuse in interpretation.
I don't think I did 'too bad on defining 'Rights, but I do think I could have done better.
Seems a difficult concept 'to define, maybe.
The 2nd Amendment or the Supreme Court, Ultracrepidarian 'did use them a bit, to claim guns as a 'Right,
And I argued times change, as well as the 'Right to Guns being to more than rifles and handguns historically.
Still, I appreciate the feedback and you voting.
Many Things are all a bit different, but one can observe what others do,
Theorize whether and how it might work with another Thing.
People, businesses, armies, countries.
Certain laws, concepts, strategies, items are implementable, admittedly often with slight change to another's use of.
I 'do think America is rather different from a number of other countries, and that such limits our knowledge of what concepts might work if transplanted.
I do think it adds some difficulty in comparing America to other countries, but I don't think it is off topic.
. . .
Suppose we lived in Colonial America and were Native Americans discussing what our weaponry should be.
One could argue the debate to be limited to only what our people currently have and are using.
Bows and arrows, but some guy argues we should adopt the flintlock rifle.
It seems to me to miss the mark to claim that aspects of the bow and arrow civilization should not be compared with outside nations.
There are 'differences of course, that might make flintlocks a difficult transition,
Lack of blacksmiths, knowledge, gunpowder, army tactics different.
But I wouldn't agree that the two countries should not be compared when considering change.
I'm not complaining about the vote,
I'm just not convinced of the Comparison Invalid argument.
Though admittedly if I was on the opposite side, I'd argue differences between America and other countries explain certain Outcome differences.
That maybe mean guns are not the problem, or that gun removal might be difficult.
"That directive was: "Should every American have the right to bear arms?" - thus establishing the country of debate limitation - America - and not in addition to Japan, Canada, Mexico."
- fauxlaw
I don't see the problem with comparing America to other countries.
By other countries one can see what is possible.
By other countries one see's laws in such degree that certain allowances are not 'Rights.
"Right"
- fauxlaw
I 'did have trouble defining and separating Right and Privilege.
I don't see the New York example as arguing Rights can exist in 'any degree of regulation.
At certain degrees of regulation, I think certain actions and possessions are no longer Rights in a fashion. Hm, but even here I have difficulty putting the thought into words.
I see New York as argument that people choose their Rights, and that they can choose to have no Right to guns.
"Sourcing"
- fauxlaw
It's hardly 'impossible to link referenced sources and texts,
I put the sources right after each text they applied to.
. . . But it's a fair point that putting number next to source both in argument and at end, might have been better.
Fair point on my use of apostrophe, though I think the difference between 'Word and ""Word" is clear enough.
Still I understand why someone might count it against me, not following traditional language.
Still, my views aside, I appreciate the feedback and vote on the debate.
I don't know why enter isn't working. Ah well.
Pro Round 1
Brings up various arguments on how strict moderation will allow debates to run easier and attract more users.
Con Round 1
Callback to DDO's success is a bit hard to verify the 'why DDO succeeded. Though arguments merits may be more visible the 'old DDO users.
Argues people engage 'more when they have more freedom.
Not a bad argument, to a 'degree, and 'maybe there is difference between in person location and online interactions.
But I'd reckon that 'even online, having 'no standards, results in a skew of who participates.
. . . Course both debaters seem to agree to 'some moderation in most extreme cases.
While Con used more sources of meaning than Pro,
I'm not convinced the sources are meaningful 'enough,
While they 'are news articles and statistics, I'm not sure correlation is causation,
Eh, probably lean towards giving Con points for sources, unless Pro addresses said sources or uses sources of their own.
Pro Round 2
Makes arguments regarding changes in DDO moderation and owners effecting site.
"one of the bigger issues was what was being advertised on the front page of the website"
The bots seem an extreme example though, unrelated to question of high vs low moderation.
Still, Pro brings up argument of DDO being different earlier to mid, to late.
Brings up many bans in earlier DDO.
Impact of argument depends on Con response.
Pro argument of the 'quality and professionalism of the divisive debaters, I think is a strong point.
Argues for 'strong censorship, not 'complete censorship.
Argues low quality trolls and division would repel, not attract.
Argues focus on major lines not being crossed,
This isn't 'bad, But I think Pro should focus argument a bit, on how Strict Modding is different from Laissez-Faire modding. What I mean is even LF would prevent 'extreme lines from being crossed.
But I suppose Pro 'has argued what they mean by major lines.
"My position will be advocating that excessive bullying, personal attacks (attacking someone's beliefs based on personal knowledge of them), and denial of major tragedies like the holocaust, or 9/11 can be harmful to a debate website. "
Pro sources play well into the DDO argument on both sides.
I'd probably tie sources currently.
Con Round 2
Makes arguments that certain moderation can push conflict underground, not remove it.
Eh, I'm not strongly convinced, in 'society, maybe it still exists, but it 'could be removed from a 'platform.
Besides, laws shape societies.
"If someone flames their opponent or lacks etiquette, that’s not a reason to censor them, it’s a reason for them to lose."
I think an 'excellent argument. . . For the 'debate part of the website. Voting 'does include conduct, and many people 'dislike losing. Maybe 'recognize how much insults 'can fail.
Forums, is different though. You can't 'lose as clearly in the forums, maybe.
"encouraged organically"
"The voters will sort it out."
I suppose users 'can avoid or block individuals.
Hm, let me look at description of debate again.
"My position will be advocating that excessive bullying, personal attacks (attacking someone's beliefs based on personal knowledge of them), and denial of major tragedies like the holocaust, or 9/11 can be harmful to a debate website. "
"my opponent will argue why he believes people should have the freedom to act however they please. Since we are talking about a privately owned debate website, too avoid semantics I'd rather not delve too much into American Laws and get into tangents about Free Speech. My opponent can make arguments for why free speech is important in a debate website,"
Description was 'clearer on what 'Pro would do, than what 'Con would do.
Con argues site is social, not purely formal, and that degree of heatedness is natural.
Argues built in User content filter. (Good point)
Argues debate site 'different than boutique (Real life locations)
Hm, I wonder if this 'was a real life location, a debate hall, what rules would be had.
Argues DDO success due to openness.
I'm not fully convinced, DDO arguably had a hotter name than DART, many different features, better advertisement maybe.
Argues Polarizing issues draw people.
While I don't think Con is wrong, I think there is a difference between hot news stories and hot social questions, and 'older ideas we've generally decided are wrong.
Holocaust for example. Not that I am against people disputing the Holocaust, I just think 'people are more drawn to hot stories which site would 'not moderate 'too much,
Compared to controversial 'niche topics, such as child consent.
Argues the ability of the forum community to smack or out ratio weird or unpopular posts.
Argues communities "thrive not because they’re clean, but because they’re alive."
I think that's true to a 'degree, but there are also communities that thrive due to standards. And even if some communities thrive, they're not always a community I'd want to be part of. Some websites have 'weird or 'really slanted people.
Still, I'm leaning towards voting Con. Not 'much, but it's there.
Pro Round 3
Argues against mob justice/rule, as potentially toxic.
Some truth in that, cliques 'can exist, and 'ideally site remains fair to all, doesn't allow dogpiles.
"My position will be advocating that excessive bullying, personal attacks (attacking someone's beliefs based on personal knowledge of them), and denial of major tragedies like the holocaust, or 9/11 can be harmful to a debate website. "
But Con said,
"Lunatic and I largely agree on one thing: egregious violations like doxxing, cheating, targeted slurs, and excessive harassment deserve moderation. That’s not the issue. The disagreement lies in how far moderation should go beyond that."
A problem I have with this debate, is that the description was a bit vague on what Cons position would be.
Pro argues real life social locations and interactions still have rules.
Argues for intellectual vision of DebateCraft.
Argues ability of civil, non insulting debates to draw people. such as MLP. (A good argument)
Argues social mobs backwards.
Con Round 3
Argues DDO fall due to "Juggle abandoned development, let bots overrun the place,"
The 'end 'fall yes, But I 'think there was a 'middle ground of sorts, the Juggle abandonment part. Which arguably may have led to many of the issues that Pro takes issue with. Such as the messy front page.
But I think Con makes a good argument on ability of DebateCraft to promote what they choose. But still 'allowing controversial content to exist, just not on front page maybe.
Argues lax moderation doesn't mean 'no moderation.
Again, issue I have with debate is that in description Cons position was bit vague (To me)
Argues engaging content creators not always polite.
"Unless someone is crossing a serious line (threats, doxxing, etc), let people engage."
I don't really care for this argument, I've found forums to be 'oddly accommodating to abusive individuals at times. People have thick skin or 'want to be, but it 'does allow toxic people and their waste to pile up sometimes.
. . . But then I think many people just 'leave, don't report, don't fight, just leave. Then we are stuck with the toxic individual and their waste, for a 'while. All the while driving people away.
