The debate.org site rules should be more strictly enforced.

The reason for cutting down on profanity and insults is that these alternatives to reasoned debate, and DDO's value lies entirely in offering a place for reasoned debate. Profanity seems required for commercial fishing, and since I like eating fish I'd never suggest try to inject civility into that business. Boxing requires not just insults, but actually people hitting each other in the face. Civility, however, is required for reasoned debate, and since I like reasoned debate, I'd like to see civility expanded. It's the method appropriate to the practice of debate. 1. There is room for improvement on debate.org Con argues that any form of user moderation would require substantial resources from the site owners and would necessarily lead to moderation that becomes abusive. I offered several rebuttals.a) Increased enforcement has reduced profanity, with no significant problems. Con himself says that he stopped using profanity as a result of the insistence of site administration. Their work load has then decreased, not increased. Con says “The explosion of user mods already presents a crapload of other potential problems that are far worse than just harmless insults,” but he doesn't cite a single a single problem, nor does he provide any examples.b) I pointed to a specific forum thread [12] where it was solely a matter of policy, not resources, that led to a failure to enforce the rule against insults. Con claims that I am the only one one on the site who objects to trading insults, but it's evident from that thread alone that there are others who object and are willing to go on record as objecting. There are frequent forum threads dealing with the problem, such as [14. http://www.debate.org...]. Searching “problem with trolls” on debate.org produces 10,100 hits, and there are many other ways to phrase the search.Some members like to make and trade insults. That's because insults are easy, and logical debate is hard. In this respect it's like sports. Breaking the rules is easy while winning within the rules is difficult. In debate, insults and profanity are used as distractions.Con was kind enough to provide an example within the debate. I claimed that “The Weekly Stupid” could continue by eliminating the insulting characterizations. My point is obvious. Exposing weak, unfounded, or illogical arguments is a valuable contribution to the site, so pointing to egregious examples is not a problem. Con's only reply was, “That is single handedly the stupidest and most asinine recommendation I have ever heard......” That response provides no reasoning and thereby has concedes the argument.c) I pointed to the example of facebook creating user-moderated groups, and noted that DDO could do the same thing. There is no threat of over-moderation, because individuals can decide for themselves whether or not they want to participate in any group. On facebook, those who feel that ranting is fun can still do so. It simply offers the alternative of having civil discussion. If anyone feels a particular group is over-moderated, they can go to a different group. Facebook does none of the moderating and excises no control over the groups, so it's not taxing their resources.Con ignored this method of increasing the enforcement of site rules. He pretends that even the slightest expansion of islands of civility in which site rules are enforced would lead to abuse of moderator power over the entire site. By failing to contest the argument, he implicitly concedes it would work. To “have fun” by insulting others, it's important that there be no easy way for others to escape.Con argued that if calling other members “moron” was banned, then everyone on the site would end up being banned. In fact, there are only 30 to 50 instances of one member calling another a moron in the past year. Con then abandoned his argument that everyone would be banned, and retreated to the argument that insults are rare, so there is no need for stricter enforcement. He has to settle on one argument or the other, and since he abandoned “everyone will be banned” Simultaneously arguing that there is no significant problem and that everyone will be banned is a logical contradiction. Con granted that profanity had been reduced by increased enforcement, yet he could cite no instances of excessive zeal.I pointed out that I wasn't attempting a comprehensive search for insults and profanity, but only a few examples. Con did not rebut that argument, continuing to claim few had been cited. Among the words for which I didn't search and have since appeared in the debate are stupid, moron, fuckwit, dumbo, retard, arse, cheat, dishonest, know-nothing, and delusional – and all of those from a single thread. [12]2. More strict enforcement will attract and keep better usersWhat percentage of swimming pool users can poop in the pool before it becomes a problem? What percentage of baseball players can break the rules before it becomes a problem? It doesn't take many.Con argues that moderator judgment cannot be trusted. This argument embodies the fallacy that because borderline cases exist, recognizing clear cases is difficult or impossible. By analogy to an extreme, one might argue that because there are difficult cases of determining justifiable self-defense, having a law against murder is not viable because it cannot be justly enforced. The answer with respect to DDO insults, and also arguments of self-defense, is that the rule is that borderline cases go to the defendant. Ordinary people serve on murder trial jurys; finding good volunteer moderators isn't a problem.Con argues that because I have not left the site despite lax enforcement, that there is no reason to think that anyone else has left. Tolerance of immature behavior varies. We have many people who join the site, but don't participate actively. I cited facebook groups as an example of people seeking a civilized alternative to ranting.3. More strict moderation will improve debate skillsI argued that proving something to be stupid is not as easy as it may seem, and therefore requiring the proof improves debate skills. I gave an example. Con never contested this argument.I argued that while trolls may believe they are doing something clever, in fact if one sets out solely to be obnoxious success is assured. Con never contested this point either.Con says, “Calling a stupid argument stupid though isnt ranting, its a does [dose] of reality, ...” The point of debating is to find out what is “reality” and what is not. Proclaiming an argument to be stupid doesn't prove it to be stupid. Instead, forget about making the proclamation and instead give the reasons why it is so. Don't say it, just prove it. If it's really stupid, then you should be able to do that. If you cannot, because it's not as easy as it seems, then work on debate skills.Con argues, “Not everyone who uses insults though is a troll, ...” That isn't the debate resolution, so the precise definition of troll is irrelevant. The point is that a person may be a genius, but if he cannot say why an argument is stupid he is not a good debater, and he is not contributing positively to the site.Debate categoriesCon didn't run the spell checker, left out the apostrophes in contractions, and made confusing word substitutions (does, dose).I think Con lost conduct with his calculated “stupidest and most asinine” in the last round. His effort should be rewarded.Con dropped many of my arguments, implicitly conceding the points. He consistently posed the false choice between making no improvement and going to an extreme of over-moderating.Con offered little or no evidence in support of his position. For example, he gave no examples of over-moderating. I provided ample statistics and examples. I believe the topic of this debate will interest many DDO members. Thanks to Con for participating.