Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
I thought of this and was intrigued by the thought, and decided it might make a interesting topic.
With this topic, I believe a comparative advantages debate would be best.
Points to consider:
*Are the debate hall members posting for the benefit of the temporary debaters?
*Are the debate hall members taking away opportunity for the temporary debaters to post? (ex: temp. debater can't post a point because debate hall member has already posted it)
*Would the proving grounds become stagnate without debate hall members?
*Is the higher skill level of the debate hall members helpful or harmful to telling the skill level of the temporary debaters?
*Does the proficiency of the debate hall members discourage temporary debaters rather than encourage them to improve? If so, does it matter?
*Would the proving grounds make reasonable progression without the debate hall members?
There are obviously more points to consider, those were just a few that came to mind. Discuss.
What if their "getting it going again" prevents temporary debaters from having a chance to post something? In this way, are they not limiting the amount of growth capable by the temporary debaters? If a debater can't post, and get his/her points refuted, how can they grow or defend their position?
I think only a selected few should be allowed. Ones of noteworthyness and intellegence. If too many come then we'll probably get over run with them then we won't have the chance to really debate. Even if we try to get our points acrossed, we could be casted aside and overshadowed by their debates. If the admins allow Debaters in here then the max of how many memembers allowed should be 10 in my opinion. This way there won't be too many of them. Maybe keep them regulated? Switching up new debaters every month or so? Just throwing ideas out there.
But if they do come they can show us how to properly write our posts and explain our points without being too bland or repetitive. I do believe we should let Debaters in the Proving Grounds but only to an extent.
Debate hall members should not see arguing their points as their main objective. The ideal situation would be debate hall members that mainly critique syntax, grammar, logic, etc; so that people starting out get a sense of proper post etiquette and such.
Of course, they can post their own opinions, but I feel that's not the point.
They should be able to post in the proving grounds but as delorted previously states it should be more as a overseeing figure. One that creates topics, keeps subjects going, conducts a sense of "proper post etiquette" (Delorted) etc. No harm can really be done by having Debate Hall Members posting in the proving grounds.
Now, I see where an individual could claim that the harm is not significant, or the harm will fix itself, but there is most definitely at least a degree of harm. And to keep this thread going, I will be defending this harm in this post.
Let us return to the "points to consider" I posted:
Points to consider:
*Are the debate hall members posting for the benefit of the temporary debaters?
*Are the debate hall members taking away opportunity for the temporary debaters to post? (ex: temp. debater can't post a point because debate hall member has already posted it)
*Would the proving grounds become stagnate without debate hall members?
*Is the higher skill level of the debate hall members helpful or harmful to telling the skill level of the temporary debaters?
*Does the proficiency of the debate hall members discourage temporary debaters rather than encourage them to improve? If so, does it matter?
*Would the proving grounds make reasonable progression without the debate hall members?
With the post of delorted1, a smash debater who would very likely know the debate hall members and their debate styles better than any member of the proving grounds, it is evident that at least he thinks they are not posting for the benefit of the temporary debaters, and asks them to do so.
Are the debate hall members taking away opportunity for the temporary debaters to post?
I myself have experienced this on multiple occasions.
Mediocre said:
This forum exists to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall.
How can potential debaters be adequately tested if members who have already been tested are posting in the place of them? There is no need for the debate hall members to refute an argument if a proving grounds member will do it. Even if they do not do it as well, the purpose of this room is not to have "good" debate. It is explicitly "to test potential debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall." While this is evident and posted in the stickies, debate hall members here do not give ample time for temporary debaters to refute points. I cite these examples:
(TB=temporary debater post; DH=debate hall member post; TT=total time elapsed in between posts.)
Note: I specifically left out any posts that were obviously written for the sole purpose of critique or clarification. Or posts that were not directly relating to the post before it.
Now, these are just examples from the last two pages of two threads. Assuming I log in at three random times a day. (Many people don't have that opportunity) and am asleep 8 hours a day,
(but not during the times of these posts)
and I want to post in the intelligent design thread on 4-23-2009. The odds of me being able to reply to one of those posts is ~2.5%. Now yes, this was an extreme example, and yes, my math could be off, but the point is obvious, Debate Hall members are taking away opportunity for temporary debaters to refute and construct points.
Would the proving grounds become stagnate without debate hall members?
This is not a valid question. It is completely irrelevant to this debate.
Mediocre said:
This forum exists to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall.
The question is not whether it would be stagnate, and this system has worked in the past anyway. The only threat of a stagnate proving grounds is the lack of one's ability to see if members are potential Debate Hall material. This post:
Mediocre said:
After reviewing all the members who were nominated, I've decided to let the following users into the Debate Hall:
Makes it evident this is not the case. Seven temporary debaters were found worthy of the Debate Hall, the proving grounds are doing their job correctly. So therefore, as history tells us, these boards do not stop doing their job when left alone. Since this is true, this point is null.
Is the higher skill level of the debate hall members helpful or harmful to telling the skill level of the temporary debaters?
One may assume that the best way to tell if someone can post with the debate hall members would be to have them post with the debate hall members. This is entirely true. But, this is already in place.
ZeroBeat said:
By requirement, you are to make 3 posts within your first week to see how you fair with the veterans of the room.
Since this is already a requirement, there is no need to repeat it. So for the sake of this debate, that point is null.
Does the proficiency of the debate hall members discourage temporary debaters rather than encourage them to improve? If so, does it matter?
If a temporary debater is not doing well, it is their job, not the job of any debate hall member, to improve. If a person are discouraged by refutation, they need to learn to fix this before they are ready to enter the debate hall, and this is not the debate hall member's responsibility or problem. The purpose of these boards is "to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall". It says noting about encouragement or improvement. So, either way, it does not matter. Therefore, if one needs to improve, it is no one's responsibility other than his or her own to make this improvement. And through this logic, this point too, is null.
Would the proving grounds make reasonable progression without the debate hall members?
Regardless of whether it does or not, this point is irrelevant. Again I quote:
Mediocre said:
This forum exists to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall.
Aforementioned points prove that this can be accomplished without the help of Debate Hall members, and therefore,
(you guessed it)
this point is null.
Through looking at each point to consider individually, it can be seen that all points either support the leaving of the debate hall members or are not relevant to this debate. So, with this in consideration, Debate Hall members should not be allowed to post in the proving grounds.
Debate Hall members: I was playing the devil's advocate, don't leave.
Debate hall members should not see arguing their points as their main objective. The ideal situation would be debate hall members that mainly critique syntax, grammar, logic, etc; so that people starting out get a sense of proper post etiquette and such.
Of course, they can post their own opinions, but I feel that's not the point.
I wholeheartedly agree. Many of the Debate Hall members are jealous of the more activity here than in the actual Debate Hall. If they were to all pack up and come here to DEBATE, then the Debate Hall would die, and there'd be no point of Debate Hall. However, if they come and critique our debating, we can shape up and possibly have a better chance of moving to the Debate Hall.
Amazing post, Faithkeeper. All you have to do now is organize and spell check, and you're good to go. Loved the whole calculation bit. You're on to something.
