Thoth

I was struck by how much more laissez-faire the draft of DebateCraft's Code of Conduct is than DebateArt's CoC. Not to judge one way or the other, but it reflects an extremely different approach to moderation and, since I thought you ran DART, I did think it was odd that you wanted such a drastic change.

Since I can't really speak to the details of DebateArt

I was under the impression that you also owned DART.

Comparing this Code of Conduct to the one from DebateArt, it seems to me like you are going for a much, much, much more laissez-faire approach here.

Direct threats or explicit calls for violence against specific individuals or users.

Considering that specific, explicit threats of violence can potentially earn you a visit from an armored van, or even a prison sentence, I think this should incur a harsher penalty than a one-month ban.

DebateArt was short-lived. What makes you think DebateCraft will fare better? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I want to know what's changed.

Not sure where we will land on it, but I'm sure we'll come up with a nice way to reference ourselves over time.

"Crafters" seems decent.

Hey DebateCrafters! (DebateCraftians?, DCers?)

I would suggest Debatecraftsmen, but: (1) it's too long; (2) it's andronormative and Debatecraftsperson is even more unwieldy.

I was not aware of the Youtube channel. That's probably not a form of outreach I would have considered for a debate site, but I'm optimistic.

We need more community members to come try forum mafia.

Actually, what we need are more community members to try it and then stick around. I promise you will want to.

You can't renounce something you never had. That's why the Buddha's renunciation of worldly desires meant something. He was born into wealth and supposedly was attractive.

Why should I not judge a book by its cover? The cover literally tells me what the book is.

Ghetto Person Talk

I picked a side, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

All this and they leave a racial slur in the name?

This is the ideal female body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

Fair, but I want young women energy and vibes even when she's 65.

I want a winning Powerball ticket.

Are you too looking for a poster wife?

Presumably, they would give birth to a poster child.

I could also say your constitution is a slippery slope cause it might allow mentally ill people to own guns.

I think you are on to something here. This forum is proof that the First Amendment gives mentally ill people the right to free speech.

I don't see localized gun control ever being effective, considering how easy it is to get around by merely hopping over a border

See: Casinos on Native American Indian reservations.

Yes, but neither of us has made the argument that copy-pasting from AI should be allowed. All we're arguing is blanket prohibition vs. allowing assistance like research.

You might not support blanket permission, but this is one of the views listed in the OP.

Is the professor giving feedback and letting you submit a revision not "specific to what you are writing"?

It is specific, but also an exception to the general rule because the professor explicitly allows a revision.

Same with voters giving feedback on an argument. If I'm allowed to use feedback from a previous debate to make a stronger version of my argument, but my opponent who hasn't debated before isn't allowed to get feedback at all before they submit for this debate, then that's not really fair to them.

Life is not really fair. The number of reasons why someone could have an advantage in a debate for reasons unrelated to their debating skill are called Legion, for they are many.

I'll also note that in most courses, getting feedback from other students or a TA on an essay is allowed if not actively encouraged.

This is irrelevant unless you think that getting help from other humans to write your debates should be allowed if not actively encouraged.

So people should be allowed to use AI to ask for concepts. Like "what's a potential rebuttal to my argument?" Or "what are weak spots of this argument?" That's a concept, not something they are going to copy paste.

My thesis on the AI-writing-debates issue is: (1) getting help from another human is, generally speaking, wrong; (2) getting help from AI is equivalent to getting help from a human. You proved (2) for me by pointing out that AI can generate concepts, which is what qualitatively sets it apart from other sources of technological assistance like Clippy, paper dictionaries, non-AI-enhanced search engines, etc.

A limited comparison is not an equation.

I might as well add that I disagree with temporary bans as far as the fourth or fifth offense, for AI or for anything else. If someone has not learned their lesson after three bans, they never will.

There are two aspects to this: theoretical and practical. Both lead to the same conclusion. The theoretical aspect is, as I discussed at length in the debate I linked in post #6, that having an AI assist you in writing a debate is equivalent to having a human help you, which is obviously unacceptable unless a specific debate allows it. The practical aspect is that allowing AI content will turn Debatecraft into a cesspool of AI slop. For the latter reason more than the former, AI needs to be nipped in the bud.

Question 1: What should be the default rules for AI in Debate Arguments?

Blanket prohibition.

Question 2: What should be the punishment for violating AI rules?

First offense: stern warning. Second offense: one-week ban from debates. Third offense: permanent ban from debates. "From debates" meaning they can still use the forum and perhaps vote on debates.

Question 3: How should we moderate AI VOTES

Complete prohibition. This is possibly worse than AI debates since it will inevitably lead to people voting without thinking about each side's arguments.

Question 3 How should we punish voting violation?

Same as with debates.

Question 4: Should we allow debaters to change the default rules?

Yes, although this should be subject to change if it looks like it is even slightly tilting the site towards becoming an AI-slop-fest.

You're against getting any human feedback on an argument, right? So what about votes that give feedback to debaters? Should the rule be that, once a voter has given you feedback on an argument, you can never improve it and use it again?

If I have someone else write my school essay for me, that is plagiarism. If the professor gives me feedback and lets me submit a revision, or if I use that feedback to improve future essays, that is not plagiarism. All my points against using AI in debates are specific cases of the principle that intentionally using human assistance specific to what you are writing is plagiarism, extrapolated to AI now being on par with many humans.

Also seems hard to be consistent with the ChatGPT thing since maybe someone asked AI about a topic 3 years ago and now are using that knowledge in an argument. That seems like it should be allowed, but then how is that different from someone asking ChatGPT for information to use in an argument? They both got influence from the same place.

If I talked with someone about something years ago and mention that in my school essay, that is not plagiarism. If I ask someone to write a paragraph about that subject while I am writing my essay, tricking them into writing part of my essay for me, that is plagiarism. The boundaries of plagiarism can be unclear, but that does not mean there are no boundaries.

I mean, same for most of the arguments used here. Ontological argument for God, bodily autonomy argument for abortion, Kalam cosmological argument, none of those concepts are original. But it doesn't seem like plagiarism to me to just borrow a concept.

Borrowing a concept is not plagiarism. Having a human or AI construct an argument for you from that concept is plagiarism. Again, this is just applying to AI what is commonly understood for humans.

I think it would be fruitless to have any ban on AI research assistance, since how would it be identified?

Every day, a murderer walks free because they hid the evidence and shut up when the cops came. Why have a law against murder?

I might as well link to this debate I did. I was not playing devil's advocate.

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/1g/the-use-of-artificial-intelligent-agents-ai-on-debate-sites-should-be-banned

I'm probably in there somewhere.

Tell ya what. If we hang all the corporate executives responsible for the mass-murderous shitshow called the American healthcare system, then I will think about supporting the death penalty for people who committed just one murder.

On a minor tangent, as an aphantasic, I always have a hard time believing that other people can see things in their minds. Maybe it will happen to me right before I die.

Remember at the beginning of Covid when grocery store employees were being praised as "essential workers" and even got some joke temporary pay raise? Not once did I see anybody hailing farmers as heroes. All I can infer from this is that people think food comes from Walmart.

Yes