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

Olhando, thank you for responding with urgency. I plan to further refute your plan in regards to your arguments. You should prepare yourself as well. :) I will only address the arguments that my opponent has made, then I will extend the points that he failed to address. ____________________________________ -FIRST POINT: • Arguing the format of something that should not exist is unnecessary. Who is anyone to decide what or what not we SHOULD do? Good question. My opponent states that no one has the right to imply correctness, but this would be hypocritical on his behalf. The topic reads, "Debate.org SHOULD have a message system", therefore, using my opponent's logic, since we cannot accept a statement that implies correctness, we must negate the topic. So is con arguing that Communication is Wrong? The question mark was intended for signifying uncertainty, I am NOT arguing that communication is wrong categorically, my arguments are intended to be against the matter at hand, the message system. ____________________________________ -SECOND POINT: -----ENHANCES CHEATING----- • My opponent's plan would make sharing arguments significantly easier. "When looking over Con's argument he states arguments will be easier to share. That is in fact, the point!" This point is called cheating. The purpose of this site is for the contender to use his research ability's as well as his own knowledge in order to debate. IF said contender can just get all of his arguments from someone else, without any work, that would be cheating because instead of it being a one-on-one debate, it would become a two-on-one. • Private message systems would make planning to collectively vote AGAINST someone they dislike more attainable. "How can you prove people will be voting out of friendship?" The remark that I made in regard to people collectively voting against someone is known as a group tactic that already occurs on this site. This is not an assumption. Look at Logical-Master for example, a group of people disliked him so they voted against EVERY one of his debates. This would make that same movement just a little more sophisticated and more attainable. My opponent could argue that this is unlikely, but you must recognize that this message system would do nothing but enhance that possibility of occurrence. "...there is NOTHING to stop us looking up any argument. The tools are already in place!" This is true. But, I don't think my opponent understands the difference between researching and blatantly cheating. Using Google and various other websites is not considered cheating, because they are not giving you specific arguments, they are there for research purposes, unlike a human being whom has the capabilities to read the arguments and feed you specific responses. -----DEFEATS THE PURPOSE----- • This plan would allow for more personal communication and building friendships. "First off, this is an online community. People are already creating relationships, mostly negative." I agree, BUT this still doesn't assert my point about how MORE personal communication would occur, and as my opponent conceded, this would create MORE negative relationships. Essentially, his movement would enhance the negative aspects of this site. • The point of this site is to debate. "My plan actually is too ENHANCE the purpose of this site. Expand the accessible information for debates." I would assume that my opponent is associating a positive connotation behind his meaning of enhancing. But, as I previously stated, this "easily accessible information" would be a nicer way to term cheating. "Simply because one can plagiarize another's work does not mean we should not communicate" I respectfully disagree, plagiarizing is an EXTREMELY negative part of this site, and in no way should it EVER be accepted, NOR enhanced. ______________________________________ -THIRD POINT: -----EFFICIENCY----- • The new system wants to solve slander on this site. "Not solve, but by controlling your comments (on your page keep in mind)" But, without this plan, slander would be solved COMPLETELY, because comments would not be allowed on your personal page. Control OR Solve? I'd chose the latter. • Problems regarding slander could be solved simply by alerting the webmaster to keep a closer eye on comments. "Though it is NOT more efficient to have a webmaster check everyone's personal page" Please disregard this statement, I was speaking in regards to the debate page, the "comments on personal pages" idea, is not efficient, as it would mean every member would be responsible for making sure people do not post slanderous remarks -----SOLVABILITY----- • THEREFORE, the power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster. "I agree with Con that the Webmaster decides what's on a debate page. That is their job." This is mark of concession. Thank you Olhando. Not that this really makes much of an impact. ______________________________________ FOURTH POINT: -----HUGE ASSUMPTION----- • More features does not always mean more entertainment. "I agree to disagree on this. More features does not always mean more fun." This is another mark of concession. "The purpose of this site is to debate for fun." Another mark of concession. "Thus, by expanding ways to debate, we are expanding ways to have fun" TRUE. But, a new messaging system is not another way to debate, it is simply another form of communication. There is a difference. -----FALLACIOUS----- • There is a logical analysis that states: "Quality over quantity". The logical analysis Con uses only works if we think in terms of subjectivness of users. Therefore, it is my opponents burden to prove that the majority of the users would enjoy this added feature. "In terms of Myspace - Messages and Comments are VERY popular." Myspace is VERY popular, period. That is definitely something I would agree with. BUT, the people here on debate.org share contrasting views from the majority of myspace users. People come here to debate, not to enjoy casual conversation. The need to converse is already satisfied through the comments section. "I am JUSTIFIED in this because, in a democracy, Majority rules, and the Majority (as in myspace/facebook/msn groups)" Yes, majority DOES rule. But, my opponent is comparing the views of myspace/facebook users in order to determine what we should have on this debate site. This, once again, defeats the purpose. Eventually, this site would become a "myspace that happens to have a debate corner". ______________________________________ Voters please extend the following arguments: • My opponent's plan would enhance cheating. • My opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site. • The power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster. • The system is not more fun. I feel as if these arguments have been best upheld on my behalf. These are CRITICAL fallacies inherent within my opponent's purposed plan. THUS, I beseech you to vote CON. -Protagoras of Adbera