Debate.org should have a message system so members can communicate more efficiently.

Protagoras, I am pleased with your response, though I plan to reprove my point in regards to your arguments. Prepare yourself. 1 - "Arguing the format of something that should not exist is unnecessary" Here Con is arguing that this system SHOULD NOT exsist. First off, I would like to use a tactic from my last debate. Who is anyone to decide what or what not we SHOULD do? Should --> implying Correctness. So is con arguing that Communication is Wrong? Obviously this is ludacrious and voters should see that this point has been negated. 2- "-----ENHANCES CHEATING-----" When looking over Con's argument he states arguments will be easier to share. That is in fact, the point! Presumably, members should be allowed to expand thier horizons. Whether it be through Google, or Debate. org itself. "collectively vote AGAINST someone they dislike more attainable. " As of now, we can achieve this in the comments section. Actually, we do. Many people write, "Vote Con/Pro", though this is just a suggestion. If con is suggesting that having a message system will increase our troubles of something like 'online debate gangs voting for one another', if you will, I say that this is an issue of perception. How can you prove people will be voting out of friendship? Addtionally, BECAUSE we are on the internet, there is NOTHING to stop us looking up any argument. The tools are already in place! Obviously people dont abuse it, OR they do, regardless we cannot accuratly determine who IS cheating and who is not. 3- "• This plan would allow for more personal communication and building friendships. • The point of this site is to debate. • THEREFORE, my opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site. " First off, this is an online community. People are already creating relationships, mostly negative. Debate is MUCH different from ARGUMENT. The connotations one assume is that Debate is positive, exploring ideas and trying to prove points, ARGUMENT are malcious, somewhat uncoordinated, and when people are frustrated they often disagree simply because they are pissed. My plan actually is too ENHANCE the purpose of this site. Expand the accessible information for debates. Simply because one can plagarize anothers work does not mean we should not communicate, Like earlier stated: All the information is already out there, people can already cheat and plagiarize. If anything, this expands the chances for both sides. 4- "The new system wants to solve slander on this site. " Not solve, but by controling your comments (on your page keep in mind) you are able to thwart out slander yourself. Who will have control over the debate comments? No one, I mean comments in terms of your own page. Much like the Blogs on Myspace, the primary user gets control of those. "• Problems regarding slander could be solved simply by alerting the webmaster to keep a closer eye on comments. • The latter takes less work in order to solve the same problem THUS the latter is more efficient. " - It is already the Webmasters job to ensure the Terms and Conditions are put into place. Though it is NOT more efficent to have a webmaster check everyones personal page. It would be much more realistic for users to choose there own comments. "This new system doesn't solve slander that occurs on the debate page. " -I only said that comments should be used much like a Myspace page <- A personal avenue. I agree with Con that the Webmaster decides whats on a debate page. That is their job. 5- "The new system would have more features. More features does not always mean more entertainment. • THEREFORE, the system is not more fun. " I agree to disagree on this. More features does not always mean more fun, HOWEVER: The purpose of this site is to debate for fun. Thus, by expanding ways to debate, we are expanding ways to have fun. Con says that "More features does not always mean more entertainment"- Like I said, true, but NOT in this case. 6- There is a logical analysis that states: "Quality over quantity". • My opponent advocates the opposite. • THEREFORE, my opponent's fourth point is logically unsound. " The logical analysis Con uses only works if we think in terms of subjectivness of users. Some users MAY think the 'quality of our system' (2 message systems: Debates / Debate Comments) is acceptable and performs well. Then again, we can use this logical reasoning and see how it does not work in all situations, like this, others MAY think that we only need 1 of these systems, because both are bad, and taking away quantity will improve quality. This is obviously wrong, just because we take away one bad thing does not make another good. In terms of Myspace - Messages and Comments are VERY popular. So I am generalizing when i say it will 'be more fun'. I am JUSTIFIED in this because, in a democracy, Majority rules, and the Majority (as in myspace/facebook/msn groups) enjoy those luxuries rather then having a hell of a great Blog System, or a fantastic bulliten generator. Voters and Con- As you can see I have restated my case in terms of the arguments presented, and it stills holds true. Thus: Debate. org should have a message system so members can communicate more efficiently.