Vote totals:
Yes:
50%
No:
38%
Neutral:
13%
DEBATE: DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
Some debatewise users can’t post in the right column
I have seen a number of comments whose users seem to think that ‘for’ means something positive, and ‘against’ is something negative.
In debating, a point for the motion promotes the validity of the argument, while a point against the motion refutes it.
Should Debatewise do a bit more moderating? Or edit the design of the site?
Debatewise is a new site and users will take some time to explore the layout and how the site works.
I inadvertently placed my first post in the wrong side of the debate but can’t find a way to undo this and move it from an argument for to an argument against.
I would suggest that the original poster of point should have the ability to delete a point or to shift it if they have made an error – which i guess is altering the design of the site.
Also I would say that in these early stages the Debatewise team should monitor all debates very closely and do some tidying up/moderating where it would help to maintain the clarity of the layout. That is not to say that they should edit or censor the content of the posts – but move then to correct column – including those occasions where a point for or against could more neatly be posted as a counter argument to an existing point.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
This invalidates the debates
If the ‘for’ and ‘against’ columns contain contradicting points, because people post in the wrong column, new users looking at the debate will get confused and:
1. Not come back
2. Not contribute to the debate
3. Not get both sides of the argument properly
I think you will find that interested users will persevere and try to point out such anomalies to posters and to the webmasters through functions such as the comments section at the bottom of each debate, the help page – bottom right hand link – and by improving or adding to arguments placed in the wrong column.
I do think some house keeping from the webmasters would be helpful too.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
This invalidates the website
If the debates don’t function properly, this site is worthless. So:
1. Users need to learn what each part of the site means, and how debates work
2. Webmasters should make sure users know what they are doing
This does not invalidate the website – these are early days and teething problems are to be expected as traffic increases.
I am personally finding the site very engaging, entertaining and slightly addictive.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
Make ‘Debate Creation Tips’ simple, effective and accessible.
‘Debate Creation tips’ needs to be mandatory part of registration and contain more concise information.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
The ability for anyone to edit enables abuse of the site and its arguments
Those who wish to can log in and indiscriminately edit or delete relevant and well argued points to posit their own, as already seen on some debates.
I agree. While the ‘opposing’ posters point regarding being able to delete racist langauge may seem reasonable, where does this censorship by other people end? Who decides what is racist? What one person may be offended by, someone else may consider a valid viewpoint. Surely the whole point of this site is to encourage debate and difference of opinion. To then allow posters to delete arguements because they don’t agree the content inevitably undermines this concept. Instead, the moderators should be made aware of ‘abusive’ comment, then judge themselves if the whole post (and the poster) should be removed from the site. At least they may take a more responsible and objective view.
This feature can be used to a positive end – for example, I was able to delete racist comments from one debate board and keep the argument open to constructive debate. Just as with Wikipedia, most people will us the site responsibly, and those that don’t will quickly be edited out, especially as the site grows and users become more vigilant.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
It would be clearer if debate titles were statements, not questions.
Questions allow you to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. A ‘yes’ answer is self-evidently ‘for’ something, and a ‘no’ against it. This is an easy to understand formula.
Parliamentary-style conventions (‘This house’ etc) are not what this site is about. It doesn’t exist as a training tool for competitive debaters, but as a general resource for everyone on the internet to come and learn about different topics and contribute to on-going debates. Encoding that in the language and formalities of a debating society would damage that everyman aim.
A statement such as ‘national service should be reintroduced’ can be agreed with or disagreed with. If you agree with the statement then you write your point in the points for column on the left, if you disagree then you write a point against the statement in the right hand column.
If the debate title is in the form of a question, ‘should national service be reintroduced?’ it is not clear which side of the argument the starter of the debate comes down on and therefore which column you should write in. You cannot agree or disagree with a question in the same way that you can with a statement.
From my days in my school debating society I recall that the debates were proposed in the rather formal way, ‘this house believes that national service should be reintroduced’ .
One would then hear arguments by the proposition, for the statement and the opposition against the statement. The debates were never framed as a question and I suggest that Debatewise adopts this tried and tested format – ie a statement or assertion rather than a question or enquiry as one step towards a clearer format.
Irregardless of the fact that this site is not based on competitive debating, it is essential that it be as clear as possible. In addition to helping meet the site’s aim of being a good general resource, adhering to such conventions will show users who are new to debates how they are generally worded and laid out. This would make the site an even more useful resource while keeping is very accessible.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
Not Can’t Use, but Are Learning to Use
Debatewise users are still learning the ropes – it will take time to master all the functions of the site. Therefore the proposal is flawed. If the statement was, ‘Debatewise Users are taking sometime to learn how to use the site properly’ then I could agree. Can’t is too absolute a term and suggests some disrespect towards the users of the site who I don’t believe to be stupid or slow. Debatewise users seem, based on the quality of the input so far, to be eloquent and enthusiastic about participating- – perhaps the great competition has something to do with that.
DEBATEWISE USERS CAN'T USE THE WEBSITE PROPERLY
Design flaw
It is a design flaw in terms of layout. When you set up the site you write points for during the main setup and then have to half publish it and go on to write points against. Not complicated but could trip some people up.
