Making debates in Edeb8.com is better then making debates in DDO.

Silver Crow

First I'd to thank con for accepting. Now I will start.

1. It has more features.
People on DDO have asked for team debates, a longer time to form arguments and and more rounds which Edeb8 has Edeb8 also has video debates.

2. It is more serious.
DDO is more noob friendly meaning it has numerous troll debates, vote bombs and other similar things but Edeb8 was meant to be serious as the creator said "Edeb8 is a serious debate site based largely on improving debate techniques. In practice trolls and VBers don't mesh well here and migrate to DDO quickly."

3. The voting system.
The voting system there is not perfect but is better than DDO's because there you cannot get your voting privileges revoked and it encourages people to make a very detailed RFD.

Silver Crow

Arguments :

1. Edeb8 doesn't count rule making as part of the debate so people don't have to waste a round.

2. DDO is bias.
The user Imabench has been banned on multiple occasions but only for a short period of time but what he does usually gets other users permanently banned.
Also when famous users like Lanman get's harassed people automatically take their side like when Lanman accused Spertre of harassing him his computer got hacked.

3. Edeb8's system is better than DDO's because 1. It makes the users happy. At DDO they had several occasions where people got pissed off for having their votes removed. And 2. Encourages a better RFD. By creating a longer RFD the points you have are quadrupled. And 3. It doesn't force people to make three dumb debate. In lots of instances a new user will make three dumb debates just to be able to vote.

Rebuttals :
1. Yes DDO currently has more experienced debaters but that is not because of the site it is because of the time DDO was there. Also with many good debaters come with many trolls for a example in this site I don't know much trolls but on DDO there's Heil,Imabench,2001bhu,RXR and lots of noobs.

2. It is much easier to have that features ready for use. For example which video game is better GTA V or GTA Vice City with lots of DLC? Most would say GTA V.

3. If you want evidence just look how many accounts heil has made its over 15 and Bubbatheclown continuously makes new accounts though he has already been banned.

4. This merely proves that this site does not tolerate trolls.

Romanii

Thanks again.

I'll be re-structuring my case in order to account for Pro's somewhat off-kilter organization and new arguments.

Rebuttals

1. Pro does not explain why having people "waste" a round for acceptance is necessarily a bad thing. The overwhelming consensus on DDO is that four rounds of actual debate are more than enough for any issue (most users actually prefer limiting it to 3) -- its enough to provide a constructive case, rebut the opponent's case, defend one's own constructive, and then crystallize. 5-round debates just tend to become highly repetitive. My opponent has failed to demonstrate that DDO debaters using a round for rules and acceptance is negative.

2. Pro has again contradicted his own position by demonstrating that DDO's voting system is far superior. It doesn't matter that some bad voters on DDO get mad at the voting moderator-- that is just a demonstration of their inability to accept their own mistakes. As I said last round, a single point can make all the difference, so giving bad votes *any* weight at all is a bad thing; it is much better at DDO, where bad votes are deleted and thus given no weight at all. As for the 3-debate voting requirement, it is a necessary precaution against people making multi-accounts and voting on their own debates-- a problem which would be a lot worse without the presence of that precaution. 

Silver Crow

As I've said before I'm sorry for making an incomplete argument but I've got time constraints so yeah.

Rebuttuals:

1. I thought it was obvious why more rounds are better but I was wrong, so I will explain. 1. More rounds equal to more arguments which is a good thing for more controversial topics. 2. Giving people a choice of an extra round is not bad. If people want a 4 round debate they may choose so but others may want a 5 round one so they should have the option. 3. If it is repetitive then the debaters should have made it a four round debate.

2. How have I contradicted myself? If a site is good then I should be properly taught to vote and should receive proper warnings not just having to complete three debates. Why ovoid a problem if you can prevent it? Here's an example of why the DDO guidelines are confusing.

2) Failing to explain *why* you awarded a point

The meaning of the word why is

[hwahy, wahy]

adverb

1.

for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?:
http://dictionary.reference.com...

So meaning any reason should be valid but Bluesteel removes your votes anyway.

3. You stated before that " This is important because debating is an inherently interpersonal activity-- it involves *people*. so why can you not understand that bad people are also people and make up part of the community? Also I pointed out that that were bias which is also a voting bias. Evidence for this is when I put a "bad vote" it toke Bluesteel about twenty minutes to detect it but when a popular debater makes a vote that literary said "Because fvck pro." I had to personally report it to Airmax after one whole day.

4. This is a bad calculation based on personal views and is entirely wrong. For starters DDO attracts user more now because their friends told them about DDO so logically it should be calculated like this. If DDO had 10 active users in its first 1.5 years and Edeb8 had 8 then DDO wins but if it toke DDO the whole 1.5 years to get those members while it only toke a week for Edeb8 to get theirs then Edeb8 is better.

5. Do you know what your talking about? Like at all? Good debaters have gone suicidal because of harassment. I have personally had that feeling that is why I am now a Edeb8 user. I do not to name the users so please don't ask .

6. People noticed as you can see here.

http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/66934/

http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/66923/

Romanii

Thank you for your argument...

To start off, I am thoroughly perplexed by Pro's organization of his case; he has dropped several of his original arguments and changed up the numbering quite a bit, so I'm just going to respond to his 6 points in the order that he made them.

1. More rounds does *not* mean more arguments; in almost all debates, the main arguments are put forth during the first and second rounds (opening arguments and rebuttals). It doesn't matter that some people would prefer having 5 rounds to argue; some people might prefer having 6 rounds, 7 rounds, or 35 rounds to argue -- just because a small minority of people want something doesn't mean that it is a good thing. I have explained why 4 rounds of debate is *plenty* to fit everything that needs to be said, and why having more rounds than that is generally harmful to the debate's quality. There are many features which the users of DDO have expressed a great amount of interest in implementing, but more rounds has never been one of them. Ultimately, Pro has failed to demonstrate that Edeb8's additional debate features give it a significant advantage over DDO.

2. Pro asks how he has contradicted himself; as I have already stated, it's because he is demonstrating why DDO's voting is better than Edeb8's -- the moderators remove all bad votes on DDO, whereas on Edeb8, bad votes are still given some weight (even if it is minimal). Pro says that bluesteel has removed votes that did have adequate reasoning, but he fails to actually provide a specific example of where this has happened; he has just displayed one of the deletion-justifications bluesteel wrote without any context whatsoever. Thus, my turn on Pro's argument remains standing -- DDO's voting is on balance better than Edeb8's, and since the legitimacy of wins is an integral part of the debating experience, this is a major point in DDO's favor.

3. Last round, I explained at length why bad users cannot really do anything to harm the debating aspect of DDO; all they can pollute the forums with their nonsense. And since this debate is only about the *debating* aspects of the sites, the forums are irrelevant. My argument remains standing -- DDO has many, many more high quality members than Edeb8, and that alone makes it a better place to debate due to the interpersonal nature of debating. As for Pro's random claim about moderator bias, he is going to need to provide some evidence of that, or it is nothing more than libel.

4. Pro dismisses my calculation for no reason and then proposes an alternative calculation with no demonstration of how he got his numbers and a nonsensical explanation of the calculation itself. I understand that Pro was under time constraints while writing his argument, but that does not excuse him from the burden of having to provide at least somewhat coherent rebuttals... Also, I might as well take this opportunity to point out that by the
time DDO was 1.5 years old, it already had *at least* 27 active,
high-quality members, which easily turns out to be 3 times Edeb8's population [www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/44375]. Thus, my argument remains standing; any way you look at it, DDO has a larger userbase of actively contributing members.

5. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. It is unfortunate that Pro felt the need to make this personal. Isolated instances of cyber-bullying on DDO have *nothing* to do with the debating aspect of DDO. They only relate to the site's social aspect. Pro's argument remains irrelevant, and should be appropriately dismissed.

6. Pro posts some links of forum topics in which DDO users requested increased debate argument time limits. I fail to see what his point is...

Conclusion

I have two major benefits in my favor: DDO's superior userbase and voting standards. Meanwhile, Pro has the comparatively miniscule benefit of a couple minor features which make debating on Edeb8 slightly more convenient. My benefits easily outweigh.

The resolution is negated!