Con effectively did not debate this topic. Instead, what Con did was point to what he saw as deficits in his opponent's argument, essentially just pointing to things Pro wasn't doing, and say that Pro's argument was insufficient because it didn't include those things.
The problem, though, is that Con doesn't provide any meaningful burdens analysis. That's a big gap when the entirety of your argument is "Pro didn't meet his burdens in this debate" and especially when your opponent furnishes a clear argument that does establish where he believes his burdens lie. I get that this debate was set up to literally push the BoP onto Pro entirely, which is fair enough, but Con can't get away with just responding to all that with statements about how it didn't meet his standards for absolute proof, i.e. visually monitored evidence and full knowledge of the path between one species and the species it evolved from. It's fair to expect a good deal from Pro. It is entirely unreasonable to effectively tell Pro that there is only one meaningful type of proof and that he has to convince Con to win the debate.
It's ironic because the description of this debate that Con wrote showed that his goal with this debate was for those who view it to "Learn and take away anything that will amount to any constructive value", including reasons to "reconsider an idea" and "Understand a subject better," but Con utterly dismisses any and all opportunities to do so himself. Coming from a background in virology, I'm very familiar with many of the sources of proof Pro presents, especially HIV/SIV and ERVs. They're very persuasive points that demonstrate both a modern day instance of viral species evolution a longer term example of unfixed genetic variation that demonstrates a connection between related species. They're meaningful points, just a shame Con chose not to engage with them at all. He could have learned something.
I'm still working out my decision as I write this, so bear with me if this becomes a bit of stream of consciousness rather than a clear RFD.
I think both sides end up struggling a bit with how to paint the other. You each have a clear position that you articulate rather well, even if there's some issues that feel a little unclear, but I think there's little recognition of the nuances on either side. I'm not really sure how to resolve that since I think you almost have to push back on the principles of your opponent's position rather than the specifics at times, and that's going to broaden what you're responding to as well to fit them.
Before I get into the contentions, the broader considerations here, I think, are pretty stark and both encompass this idea of how the site should be perceived. That encompasses both meeting the expectations of the debate crowd that would necessarily gather here, and ensuring that a broader crowd also feels welcomed and interested. Pretty much every point falls under that broad spectrum of impacts, with the sides arguing about what would bring in members more effectively, what would retain them, and what could push them away.
So, starting with Pro's points. As someone with a history in college style debate, I can absolutely see Pro's points here and understand why he's supporting a setup that more closely mimics formalized discussion. It's not so much that he wants to make this solely a space for structured LD, but rather that it should be the kind of space that's conducive to that discussion without allowing too much detraction. I think Pro makes some good responses about how both sides can prevent a full on descent into chaos and how some of what Pro is supporting moderating might reduce interest and participation, though the idea of setting a tone for the site is a valid concern. I don't think all of Pro's comparisons to other spaces work quite as well as he intends them to, but they do establish that a debate site isn't going to be like a social media site and shouldn't be, that you lose some aspects of what makes a debate site attractive and distinct if you don't effectively set the tone for the site.
And I think Pro sets that up better with his SEO argument, which establishes one kind of person who is likely to visit the site and find some investment here. I think Con is right to argue that there are other ways to showcase the value of the site to someone visiting it as a resource, like coding the site differently to present different elements on the home page, but it doesn't cover for the entire problem. I know Pro didn't mention this, but much as the opt-out for offensive content is a great idea, it only works for someone who is aware of it or willing to ask. A first-time viewer of the site is going to view all of it, and there's at least some question as to whether they'd be willing to stay long enough to filter the available content. I think what Pro is getting at is that first impressions to affect interaction with the site, whether that's the front page or navigating to the available debates on offer. Con does mitigate that point, but it's not off the table.
As for encouraging better behavior, I don't see a lot of light between the two sides on this since both are arguing for policing behavior in ways that would improve how people behave, but as I think Con would acknowledge, there's a little bit more room for testing the limits with his system in place. It's not so much deterrence as it is responding to repeated behaviors. I wouldn't say that argument alone gives Pro's points much of an impact since both sides acknowledge using the warning system first, it's mainly just about reacting earlier vs. later.
Much of Con's arguments, meanwhile, don't so much focus on what the site should stand for as what would most impact how many people see and potentially join the site. Pro's points do focus on this a bit, but I'd say his arguments are more focused on broad spectrum ideas of what ideals the site should embody while Con's are more directed towards site traffic.
The DDO point is a little hard to parse by the end. Much as I agree that elements of moderation may have affected DDO's success, it's hard to compare that site directly to DART and say that moderation was the chief element involved in ensuring its success. It's doubly difficult because we don't really have a timeline for the site's success vs. moderation practices, so it's not entirely clear whether that affected site traffic. All that is also complicated by uncertainty as to how close each sides' moderation policy ideas are to DDO and DART, respectively. I can see some attempts to frame Pro as more like DART and Con as more like DDO, but they're not 1-to-1.
Con's other points have more teeth to them. The idea of driving engagement through debating controversial topics isn't entirely unique to Con's argument, but they certainly allow for more topic areas to be accessed and the discussion to delve a little further, so there's more of a sense that controversy would be more common and less bounded in his system. Pro does make some good points about how this could lead to detraction from more interesting parts of an argument, but Con is right that a lack of politeness can lead to more attention, even if it's not the kind that Pro would prefer. Con's argument is supportive of having more of a social media dynamic to the site where the focus isn't necessarily on the debates themselves, but on ensuring that discussions that happen here drive more attention to the site, and in doing so create the opportunity to build more discussion. He's right that this would turn into a lot more public rebuttal instead of using moderation to censor things and that does drive traffic towards rebutting the more outlandish statements others make.
So, where does that leave me? I think Con's winning the point of just driving more eyeballs to the site, which is necessarily one of the more sizeable impacts to the debate. If the site can't drive enough attention, it's not going to grow and a stagnant site eventually falls by the wayside. I think the site grows either way, but Con makes the more persuasive point here. What's holding me back from voting Con on that basis is that that growth wolud mostly would be among people who are drawn to the controversy, which drives up the controversy, but may lose something more core to what makes a debate site a draw for debaters in the bargain. I think it does necessarily mean that the site would skew a certain direction, which may start to limit (or at least, outcompete) those debates that draw people here for the elements that truly distinguish the site from, say, social media platforms. Is that trade worthwhile?
In the end, I find myself nudged to vote Con by a narrow margin. The reason why is something he distilled out of his argument at the end of his final round: he said that the tone of the site emerging naturally from the people who join is what will really sustain the site. Yes, there's a risk that some people will be rebuffed and that, at least for some time, there might be some growing pains as various controversial posts end up jockeying for attention, but in the long term, it creates a site that has more buy-in from those who join it. I'm not sure if that's going to end up looking like the site I'd most want, but that's a risk regardless of the route we take and there's at least some chance to build something new, larger and more resilient than one focused on deterring the bad actors earlier. I kept bouncing back and forth until the end, but this is where I land.
