Feature Requests
in General

Arguments

• xMathFanx 125 Pts

  January 2018

  Tournaments both individual and/or team sounds like a fantastic idea.  Winners could potentially be determined by Community voting in polls

  

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 96% 
   
    Substantial: 43% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 95% 
   
    Sentiment: Positive  
    Avg. Grade Level: 11.46 
   
    Sources: 0  
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 17% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 53% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra
• WilliamSchulz 244 Pts

  January 2018

  One possibility that I think could work is a "team debate." These would be featured on a separate tab compared to the regular debates, and would have a few new components.
  
  1. Teams are made up of 3-4 people each following a formal Lincoln Douglass style debate.
  2. The 3-4 people are on the same range of beliefs regarding an issue.
  3. The three-four people get split into 3-4 roles, first constructive, cross examination, and rebuttal.
  4. Each argument point gets 3 days to post an argument.
  5. The teams actively discuss possible ideas for each argument and the head of the role collects the ideas with his ideas as well.
  6. Voters will judge the team effect of the argument based on the 9 point system as well as a 3 point system comparing individual arguments between first constructive, C-E, or Rebuttal. 

  A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  
  
  

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 97% 
   
    Substantial: 98% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 97% 
   
    Sentiment: Negative  
    Avg. Grade Level: 7.12 
   
    Sources: 0  
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 79% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 97% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra
• Fredsnephew 328 Pts

  January 2018

  @WilliamSchulz ;
  
  My experience of other debating sites, suggests that you will never get enough impartial members to vote.
  

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 85% 
   
    Substantial: 66% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 95% 
   
    Sentiment: Neutral  
    Avg. Grade Level: 12.38 
   
    Sources: 0  
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 76% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 86% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra
• WilliamSchulz 244 Pts

  January 2018

  Fredsnephew said:

  @WilliamSchulz ;
  
  My experience of other debating sites, suggests that you will never get enough impartial members to vote.
  

  That is a good point, do you think that if a voter setup bar could be selected for a certain topic before the debate, that a certain minimum of 3 people must act as impartial judges and then any other voters who attend may additionally vote? 

  A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  
  
  

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 94% 
   
    Substantial: 50% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 98% 
   
    Sentiment: Positive  
    Avg. Grade Level: 10.5 
   
    Sources: 0  
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 17% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 54% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra
• Fredsnephew 328 Pts

  January 2018

  @WilliamSchulz ;
  
  You would need to put some sort of mechanism in place to ensure fair and unbiased voting.
  
  Having a predetermined group of Judges in place is a good idea.
  
  Maybe also a pop up message that appears when logging on, asking members to view and vote on completed debates.
  

  

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 93% 
   
    Substantial: 92% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 94% 
   
    Sentiment: Positive  
    Avg. Grade Level: 10.26 
   
    Sources: 0  
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 84% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 95% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra
• ZeusAres42 Premium Member 281 Pts

  June 2019

  Trying to tread carefully here but I was wondering about the possibility of some modifications to some of the marking features such as the "fallacy" and "irrelevant" features for example. This would entail a MOD to review the marks and have the final decision as to whether it was a justified and adequate response.
  

  
  

  Or at least have these features not having an effect on anyone's ranking.
  

  
  

  It could go something like this: As soon as the mark is made the user could get a message saying "This will need to be reviewed before being accepted." 
  

  
  

  This also prevents abuse of those features.
  

  
  

  

  
  The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  
  

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 87% 
   
    Substantial: 99% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 90% 
   
    Sentiment: Positive  
    Avg. Grade Level: 11.44 
   
    Sources: 0  
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 94% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 99% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra
• George_Horse 432 Pts

  July 2019

  I forgot what features I would want, but one thing I would like for is the repair of polls in debates. This site is notorious for polls being deleted after you create them once you edit the debate. Its a upsetting feeling, and I've never had a similar problem on the other debate website, so this at this current time, is what I would like to be improved.

  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus
  
  "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
  
  "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

  Debra AI Analytics  

     +   

  
    Considerate: 93% 
   
    Substantial: 61% 
   
    Spelling & Grammar: 97% 
   
    Sentiment: Neutral  
    Avg. Grade Level: 9.68 
   
    Sources: 0  
    Entity Sentiment Detection: upsetting feeling 
     similar problem 
    current time 
    site 
   
  ____________________
  
    Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
  ____________________
  
    Clear (Beta): 55% 
   
    Relevant (Beta): 6% 
   
  
    Learn More About Debra