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

Dinsdale Piranha nailed heads to the floor, but people really feared his brother. “I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug. He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious.” -Monty Python [3. http://www.intriguing.com...] In this debate I will argue that Doug, not Dinsdale, should be the model for debaters. 1. There is room for improvement on debate.org So I don't have to repeat “use of profanities or swear words or use of personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions” I'll use ranting as the generic term. The official definition of rant is “to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable.” [4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] That's close enough. For the purposes of this debate, a troll is defined as a DDO member who makes a habit of ranting. In terms of civil behavior, DDO is not particularly bad as opinion web sites go. I think the site is more closely moderated that it was a couple of years ago. Google searches for profanity show fewer hits in the past year than previous. I think the amount of bad behavior on DDO would be acceptable if it were on Facebook or other non-debate opinion sites sites. But because DDO is a debate site, it should be dedicated to civilized discussion rather than rants. A few examples of current behavior should suffice to show the less-than-perfect enforcement of site rules. The “Weekly Stupid” characterizes specific arguments as stupid. Site rules prohibit insulting a person's arguments. [5. http://www.debate.org...] (I don't object to critiquing the specific logic of debates, only to using insulting characterizations.) Topic: “is Dann a tool or a moron?”[6. http://www.debate.org...] Forum post, “.. you are a sleazy moron” [7. https://www.debate.org...] Opinion: “what f*cking stupid excuse do you have” [8. http://tinyurl.com...] “Everyone posting to this page, besides me, is a childish moron.” quoted by darkermit [9. http://www.debate.org...] A google search using “site: debate.org fvcking” [10. http://tinyurl.com...] produces 229 hits in the past year. E.g., “You're a fvcking fool.” [11. http://www.debate.org...] Similar searches show sh!t used 440 times in the past year, and f*ck 172 times. The obvious letter-substitution profanities could be detected automatically and deleted or replaced. Ranting does not require use of profanity. It's easy to be insulting using non-profane words. “This is why I called you biased (even though liar is more appropriate).” [12. http://www.debate.org...] Words like idiot, stupid, fool, liar, thief, cheat, weirdo, and pervert cannot be automatically deleted because they may be used in non-insulting ways – or used to insult politicians or other non-members, which is allowable. As moderation of bad language is tightened, dedicated trolls use more non-profane insults. On DDO stricter standards can be applied, more user-moderators could be recruited, and user-moderated threads could be instituted. Abusive members could be banned with less hesitancy. 2. More strict moderation will attract and keep better users Ranting is used to express emotion and create pointless turmoil. The less ranting allowed, the fewer users who rant rather than debate will be attracted to the site. Trolls exist for the satisfaction they get by exercising their power to ruin other people's serious attempts at discussion. If they are neutered by aggressive moderation, they are likely to leave more quickly. They can also be booted more quickly. Some new debaters recoil at the vitriol and leave the site after a few debates. Other members stay on the sidelines rather than debate or participate in forum discussion where they are likely to be attacked by trolls. Some people are used to immature behavior played out to get attention, and they are more likely to tolerate ranting. There is a large potential DDO audience of high school debaters. The more ranting, the less likely that teachers will steer students to the site. In fact, some schools may block the site with Net Nanny type software. The frequency of profanity as measured by google hits has dropped in the past year. At the same time, membership and page visits on the site have grown substantially. This doesn't prove that tighter moderation causes site growth, because the site has added features like the Opinions section that attract a following, redesigned the site, and done other things designed to attract interest. Also, the pattern of ranting has to some extent shifted to other modes. However, it does show that depriving members of unlimited ranting has not devastated the site. It cannot be that a major attraction of the site are the mindless antics of the trolls. 3. More strict moderation will improve debate skills Some claims really are “stupid” – meaning that they cannot stand up to logical scrutiny. “Stupid” claims are not as easy to refute as it might seem. That's because illogical claims deny the premises that most people readily accept. For example, someone posted a challenge on the topic “The earth is flat.” The web, courtesy of various put-on web sites, has stock rebuttals to various disproofs of the flat earth. For example, the sun is claimed to circle over the earth at low altitude to explain day and night. After a few of those bogus refutations, it's tempting to say, “Well, it's just stupid.” Okay, but if so, why can't you explain the faults in the flat earth claims? A little though produces some arguments that go beyond standard flat earth bogus rebuttals. The observation that storms rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere is incompatible with even a flat earth that rotates. ... My point is that once the cop-out of dismissing arguments with an insult is not allowed, then one is left to figure out what is specifically wrong with the logic and then refuting it. Stupid arguments are not easy to refute succinctly, which is why it's tempting to yield to frustration and use insults. Debate skills are improved by reducing the cheap alternatives to reasoned debate. Stupid arguments are common in the real world, so how to face up to them is one of the most valuable skills of debate. Some trolls are proud of their ability to rile people up, thinking that they have mastered a difficult art. In fact, if one's goal is to be obnoxious, it's nearly impossible to fail. Moreover, the skill of being obnoxious is not a useful life skill. You are likely to be injured on your first trip to Texas. By contrast, the skill of efficiently defeating stupid arguments logically is valuable. It will be useful every week, perhaps every day, of one's life. Trolls may believe that the site will be no fun for them if ranting is prohibited. Trolling is like having fun by randomly pounding on a piano keyboard to make distracting noise. It's more fun to learn how to play the piano. In debate, one can learn sarcasm, and all the tricks: dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. That is really vicious. Debate.org will be more valuable if it promotes useful debate skills rather than allowing cop-outs. DDO cannot compete head-on with social networking sites like facebook or twitter as a vehicle for ranting trolls. The big sites have too large a following. DDO has done a good job of carving a niche as a place for reasoned debate. It should build on that by more strictly enforcing site rules.