I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".
At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.
This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent).
Self-moderating debates are an interesting idea. In an ideal world, where everyone is willing to honestly consider other people's ideas, it would work well. In the world we're actually in, I see some problems with it. A lot of people here are more interested in debating as a competition (which is fine). The current system lends itself to this, with win records and ratings. Adding self-moderating debates where the goal is to convince and to learn wouldn't jive well with that system. Debaters interested only in winning probably wouldn't assign a fair number of points to their opponents. On the other hand, self-moderating debates might appeal more to people like UpholdingTheFaith, who want a more discussion based format than a formal debate. I'm not sure how the two formats would mix. It could work if self-moderating debates were unrated or in their own rating system, but those solutions seem clunky to me.
I would be perfectly happy with an "unranked" status for "self-moderated" debates.
At the same time, I think it would be useful to know how charitable (open-minded) a potential debate partner has been in the past.
The main reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because most of my debates go unvoted on.
The other reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because I disagree with the RFD rules and most of the judge's OPINIONS.
A "self-moderated" debate might end in a tie, but it will never go "unvoted" and if there is any dispute about "who won", at least both sides are on equal footing and it doesn't devolve into "who has the most friends" or "who's the most popular with the judges".
And just to be perfectly clear, the current system and current rules and ranking system would be 100% UNCHANGED by this proposal. ***
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
THE PRIMARY USE-CASE FOR CIVIL DEBATE
I've seen a lot of chatter lately from very intelligent individuals who believe "the marketplace of ideas" HAS FAILED.
There are a shocking number of calls to "ban" or at least "suppress", "warning label", "shadow ban" "DANGEROUS IDEAS" and or otherwise hyper-promote "OFFICIAL NARRITIVES" (VERIFIED BY "OFFICIAL" "government approved" FACT-CHECKERS).
Even by self-described "rational skeptics", "atheists", "free-thinkers", and "libertarians".
For example, "Rational Disconnect" and Penn Jillette and even Lucien Greaves have stated plainly that unfettered "free speech" is a "DANGEROUS" ideology with "no obvious solution".
I STRONGLY DISAGREE.
THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T MISINFORMATION, FAKE NEWS, AND OR "DANGEROUS" IDEAS.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FORMAT.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DEBATE ITSELF.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T MADE ANY EFFORT TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH FACT FROM OPINION.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NEVER FOCUSED ON CONVINCING THEIR OPPONENTS.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ONLY IN A RUSH-TO-DISQUALIFY ANYONE AND EVERYONE THEY DISAGREE WITH (CANCEL CULTURE).
THOUGHT =/= CRIME
IT IS RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A FACT IS.
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY QUANTA (EMOTIONALLY MEANINGLESS).
AN OPINION IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A FACT.
THIS INCLUDES ALL SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS.
FLAT-EARTH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
QANON IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
RELIGION IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
HATE SPEECH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU DISAGREE.
I SAID IT FIRST.
JOIN THE CREATIVE COMMONS ZERO PROJECT BY COPYING THIS CONTENT AND CLAIMING IT AS YOUR OWN. COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP. STOP PAYING CORPORATE GOONS FOR THEIR STORIES AND IMAGES. STOP DEFENDING CORPORATE GOONS FOR FREE. MORALITY =/= MONEY.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?
NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eENEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu08TKhWzLsPerhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".



ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
You know this is my beef too. This is a problem even for those who claim to not do this.
An OPINION stated as a FACT has the risk of being a LIE.
I'm honored that you haven't "rushed-to-disqualify" me yet!
That's a huge INTP fallacy we have a tendency towards. I have tried to work on mine for a long while. I always have the urge to immediately just write someone off based on what I hold to be their 'limitation' to 'grok'.
INTP = "YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS!" :)

The INTP won't LEAD, and the INTP won't FOLLOW!

I'd never seen that second one.
Pure class.
The ULTIMATE ZEBRA.
It appears the Human farm is designed to make Tiger Steaks for the Usury class.
I seriously beg to differ!
Yep.
I share @vieira's view that communication should not be about trying to convince someone else, because that does little to learn about oneself.
Bringing facts into a conversation as a basis for argumentation does not necessarily lead to a good understanding, because facts that you cannot provide yourself, for example because you lack your own experience of experiment and conclusion, lead to the use of facts from others. However, because there are countless facts that differ from each other on every topic, one would have to spend years researching the existing results, which are treated as facts, in order to arrive at one's own factual result.
According to my world view, there is no such thing as objective facts, since man is not capable of thinking in exclusively objective categories.
The modern individual man has no real problems to solve, because everything has already been chewed over for him, for every inconvenience a comfort is offered to him, which "can solve his problem". Before him, cars, trains and aeroplanes were invented for locomotion, navigation devices for orientation, dwellings with electricity to protect them from the elements, mass production for food supply and educational systems for education. The planetary habitats for wild animals, which could become dangerous to humans, have been cleared by man himself, so that he can roam unhindered through forests without being attacked.
All the problems that may now come are none. You cannot speed up travel any further, nor can you significantly increase the mass of people being transported, nor can you make the food supply more effective, nor can you increase life expectancy. We have been living in oversupply for a long time and we create work by simply continuing and continuing to produce and consume, without any sense.
Within this system, communicating through debate cannot really work, because the debate space itself has become an integral part of human work, a kind of monstrous babbling machine, inflating itself further and discussing issues that are proportionate, of little importance or of little substance to debate so much. Since modern man no longer has any real problems to solve, he creates them to give himself a meaning.
Of course, we can see that it is precisely the lack of problems that has become a problem. This could then lead to a philosophical consideration that touches the core of human existence and asks the question of the acceptance of one's own mortality.
Do you really think it's so easy to distinguish opinions from facts? I think it's very difficult through debating when none of the debaters admit in the first place that they have bias and the best one can achieve might be a consensus through methods which give satisfaction to all participants.
Hey @logiczombie! I am back and have not been gone really. I'm not sure yet whether I find time to read your post, but it looks sane. Here's today's !BEER of mine for you.
Thank you very much for sharing a great post, have a good week and a great mood
thank you for the post, have a good week
Very true. I myself learning that everyone has an opinions and some people are worth listening
I turn apoplectic every time I hear someone on the radio start whining about "how do we fix fake news"?
I am not very much in favor of debates or discussions, I lean more towards dialogues. Trying to convince the other that it is wrong, or that you are right does not seem to me the most beneficial. I prefer a conversation in which both parties are more interested in finding the truth about the subject they are talking about than defending their own opinions and points of view. So that the participants are not against each other, but the two together for the truth. I am not against the competition, but in this specific case I dispense with it.
Such a conversation can only happen spontaneously and naturally, without many rules that inhibit participants from taking the necessary liberties to find what they are looking for. And that it should be as long as the subject allows. There should be no rush. It always amazed me how the United States organizes presidential debates. It is once every four years and from there the next president of the supposed most powerful nation in the world will emerge. The person who according to the media would be the most powerful in the world. However, they only have one hour to discuss all the issues of politics, economics, and society. All the issues, and just one hour. And a single hour to speak the two, not one alone. That's not enough. Any celebrity, any Kardashian, has more time to talk on her own about her latest reality show, or whatever she does, on television. It just doesn't make sense.
But back to the topic, I would be more interested in Socratic type dialogues, where only one of the interlocutors tests his opinion, and the other interrogates him to the point of seeing if it does not contradict itself, if it is coherent, if it is logically valid, in short, until we know if it is justified or not. After which one proceeds to accept or reject such opinion, or most likely to accept or reject the opinion produced by the dialogue, because during the dialogue such opinion comes to life and evolves, becoming closer to the truth, or being refuted.
The most important thing in a debate, discussion, or dialogue, must always be the truth, and if none of the parties involved is interested in releasing their opinions to get closer to it, then it is just a waste of time.
There's really only one rule, no ad hominem attacks.
Well, there are those kinds of rules, which are unwritten rules, the truth is, if you need to clarify that kind of thing, the dialogue or debate is likely to go nowhere.
∴
I agree.
Seeking common-ground is the first priority.
Yes. Opinions "written in stone" are doomed.
I've actually found that often very contentious debates are inculcated sometimes months or years later.
Ideas that I once ridiculed incessantly are now central to my outlook.
Something similar has happened to me with ideas that I criticized a lot at the time and that now I can see with different eyes. But in none of those cases was it a debate that made me change my mind, but rather self-reflection.
I've seen it happen in other people as well.
I'll make some suggestion or comment that gets dismissed as "crazy", and then about 6 months later, they'll bring it up like it was their own brand-new idea!
And of course, I let them believe (forget) I never mentioned it before, because people fall in love with their own ideas and only very rarely fall in love with "other people's" ideas.
It is a very noble thing to detach yourself from your own ideas and let them flow freely without worrying if other people attribute it to themselves. It is putting the ego aside.
It's a little easier when I realize I don't "own" any of "my" ideas (I'm more of an automated information processing unit).
I do. I make sure to let them know exactly how much Virtue they lost.
I find that if I try to tell them "I'm the one who told you that six months ago", they either don't believe me, or sort of look puzzled and say "I don't remember that". I don't think it's ever earned me any detectable "social credit".
Then you found yourself someone lacking virtue.
You also want "Social Credit" whereas that means nothing to me.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Krishnamurti
Hola logiczombie,
Gracias por destinar correctamente el 100% de las recompensas de está publicación a HP y ayudar al crecimiento de tu cuenta.
Si no deseas recibir notificaciones, responde a este comentario con la palabra
STOP
.View or trade
BEER
.Hey @logiczombie, here is a little bit of
BEER
from @andrepol for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER
.COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP
Skip to 2091 seconds,
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz: