I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".
At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.
This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent).
Self-moderating debates are an interesting idea. In an ideal world, where everyone is willing to honestly consider other people's ideas, it would work well. In the world we're actually in, I see some problems with it. A lot of people here are more interested in debating as a competition (which is fine). The current system lends itself to this, with win records and ratings. Adding self-moderating debates where the goal is to convince and to learn wouldn't jive well with that system. Debaters interested only in winning probably wouldn't assign a fair number of points to their opponents. On the other hand, self-moderating debates might appeal more to people like UpholdingTheFaith, who want a more discussion based format than a formal debate. I'm not sure how the two formats would mix. It could work if self-moderating debates were unrated or in their own rating system, but those solutions seem clunky to me.
I would be perfectly happy with an "unranked" status for "self-moderated" debates.
At the same time, I think it would be useful to know how charitable (open-minded) a potential debate partner has been in the past.
The main reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because most of my debates go unvoted on.
The other reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because I disagree with the RFD rules and most of the judge's OPINIONS.
A "self-moderated" debate might end in a tie, but it will never go "unvoted" and if there is any dispute about "who won", at least both sides are on equal footing and it doesn't devolve into "who has the most friends" or "who's the most popular with the judges".
And just to be perfectly clear, the current system and current rules and ranking system would be 100% UNCHANGED by this proposal. ***
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
THE PRIMARY USE-CASE FOR CIVIL DEBATE
I've seen a lot of chatter lately from very intelligent individuals who believe "the marketplace of ideas" HAS FAILED.
There are a shocking number of calls to "ban" or at least "suppress", "warning label", "shadow ban" "DANGEROUS IDEAS" and or otherwise hyper-promote "OFFICIAL NARRITIVES" (VERIFIED BY "OFFICIAL" "government approved" FACT-CHECKERS).
Even by self-described "rational skeptics", "atheists", "free-thinkers", and "libertarians".
For example, "Rational Disconnect" and Penn Jillette and even Lucien Greaves have stated plainly that unfettered "free speech" is a "DANGEROUS" ideology with "no obvious solution".
I STRONGLY DISAGREE.
THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T MISINFORMATION, FAKE NEWS, AND OR "DANGEROUS" IDEAS.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FORMAT.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DEBATE ITSELF.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T MADE ANY EFFORT TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH FACT FROM OPINION.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NEVER FOCUSED ON CONVINCING THEIR OPPONENTS.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ONLY IN A RUSH-TO-DISQUALIFY ANYONE AND EVERYONE THEY DISAGREE WITH (CANCEL CULTURE).
THOUGHT =/= CRIME
IT IS RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A FACT IS.
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY QUANTA (EMOTIONALLY MEANINGLESS).
AN OPINION IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A FACT.
THIS INCLUDES ALL SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS.
FLAT-EARTH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
QANON IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
RELIGION IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
HATE SPEECH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU DISAGREE.
I SAID IT FIRST.
JOIN THE CREATIVE COMMONS ZERO PROJECT BY COPYING THIS CONTENT AND CLAIMING IT AS YOUR OWN. COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP. STOP PAYING CORPORATE GOONS FOR THEIR STORIES AND IMAGES. STOP DEFENDING CORPORATE GOONS FOR FREE. MORALITY =/= MONEY.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?
NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
NEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.