Yvibe.com©
 
Rules Of Debate
login join now
Faq
 
 

What is this site?
How does this site work?
The Rules of Debate
What is an equivocation?
What is an insult?
What is a contradiction?
What is a weasel word?
What is circular reasoning?
Loss types

 

 

 

What is this site?:
Yvibe.com is a system that uses online debating to generate decisions on topics. I created this system in an attempt to represent participants rationally instead of representing them through majority rule like voting or polling systems do.
Through a carefully planed system of debating, judging, and testing, Yvibe.com members earn their significants in the decision making process on given topics.
Current voting and polling systems at best only represent majority rule in decision making processes with no regard to any rational decision making. At Yvibe.com the majority means very little, what counts is the ability to rationalize whether this ability is apparent in many people or just a few. Through mass debate, yvibe.com is able to represent everyone willing to participate.

This site is still under majority rule in the sense that the site owner must appease the members to the site to survive. The significants of this site is to go a step further then conventional voting systems to allow the rational representation of it's members through the clashing of ideas governed by consistent rules decided on by the majority of the site's members. There is no rational representation of voters until now and the creation of this site, thanks to the Internet. Not only is this the first rational representation of voters or pollers, it is also the first attempt to use an algorithm to force users to have rational, relevant, recorded discussions towards a final decision.

This is not a forum.. Forums can contain posts that are bloated, flaming, nonsensical, off the topic, with no necessary means to and end. Yvibe.com is a system based on the fundamental rules of problem solving or debating where an issue is presented and a current decision is reached based on the current evidence.

My hopes for this site, is that members will enjoy debating with each other over
topics they chose and also that this site becomes a respected place people
can go to reference or reflect on issues.

Lastly, there's only 492 characters per each post in a debate. The ability to summarize and avoid over lengthy explanations is a must at Yvibe.com.

How does this site work?:
After you create an account you then select topics to debate on from the 'Debate Signup' page. When the start date of the debate arrives you will be randomly matched with another member of yvibe.com who has selected the opposing side of the debate you have chosen. Yvibe.com randomly chooses who's turn is first for the debate. Each debater has 24 hours to respond to their debate. It is strongly recommended that you not miss your turn as this will give your opponent a tactical advantage over the debate. During the debate you and your opponent will be trying to win the debate through providing more valid evidence for your side until the scheduled ending date of the debate arrives. You will also be watching your opponent to see if their ego-defense mechanism gets the better of them. That is you will be able to easily win the debate if your opponent creates a 'contradiction', 'circular reasoning', 'equivocation', 'insult', or 'lack of evidence'. If your opponent creates any of these you can flag the debate as lost by your opponnet based on his insult(for example). Another user will review the debate and validate the debate. Users will ultimately be judging all the debates. The way I keep everyone in order and following the 'rules of debating' is by making everyone judge my fake debates along with the real debate. To judge a fake debate incorrectly will have a penalty on your credibility. You won't know which debate is real and which is fake, forcing you as the user to judge all debates by the rules to avoid possibly penalties. There is no excuse for not answering my fake debates correctly as long as you follow the 'Rules of Debate'. I must also obey the 'Rules of Debate'. Users can double check my fake debates after each debate is finished by going here (click here). If users find that I've failed to follow the 'Rules of Debate' they can comment publicly on my fake debates. The rules of majority rule come into play here in the sense that if users see me not following the 'Rules of Debate' they can call me on it and if I fail account for their points or can't uphold the 'Rules of Debate' they can leave my site. My role on this site is to uphold the 'Rules of Debate' and I will take it very seriously. I have to follow the 'Rules of Debate' or members will leave and I won't have a site anymore. I will reward the points back to everyone who failed my incorrect fake debates if I do actually make a rational error. After the debate is over Yvibe.com tallies the winning sides of the debate verses the losing sides and a rational representation of the members is formed. Through mass debate a rational representation of the public is formed creating a nice brake from the current voting, polling, and other purely Majority Rule methods.

There's only 492 characters per each post in a debate. The ability to summarize and avoid over lengthy explanations is a must at Yvibe.com.

Rules of Debate:
The intent for debating at Yvibe.com is to present an issue with two very possible yet conflicting decisions and then arrive at the more rational decision using current evidence.

1. Opponents who provide evidence on any points within the debate while the other opponent does not counter with evidence is a loss of the debate for the opponent that failed to counter with evidence. Debaters can link to outside sources as evidence in their debates.

2. New theories and solutions are valid once there's seemingly no more palpable evidence to reference. The person who judges your debate will have to decide which theory is more evident.

3. Forfeit Debate - You can just end the debate if they realize your opponent has a more considerate argument then you. click the Forfeit Debate option during the debate.

4. Equivocation - If you catch your opponent making an equivocation, you can win the debate instantly by clicking the Equivocation option during the debate. Making a false accusation of an Equivocation is a loss of debate.

5. Circular Reasoning - If you catch your opponent making circular reasoning, you can win the debate instantly by clicking the Circular Reasoning option during the debate. Making a false accusation of a Circular Reasoning is a loss of debate.

6. Contradiction - If you catch your opponent making contradiction, you can win the debate instantly by clicking the Contradiction option during the debate. Making a false accusation of a Contradiction is a loss of debate.

7. Insult - If you catch your opponent trying to insult you, i.e. they're showing intent to offend you, you can win the debate instantly by clicking the Insult option during the debate. Making a false accusation of an Insult is a loss of debate.

8. Weasel Words - If you catch your opponent using Weasel Words, you can win the debate instantly by clicking the Weasel Words option during the debate. Making a false accusation of a Weasel Words is a loss of debate.

Equivocations, circular reasoning, contradictions, insults, and weasel words are common irrational thought processes caused by the human Ego-Defense mechenism. If your opponent lets his Ego-Defense mechenism get the better of him then his intent for finding a solution for the issue is already gone and he has lost the debate at Yvibe.com.

There's only 492 characters per each post in a debate. The ability to summarize and avoid over lengthy explanations is a must at Yvibe.com.

As the owner of the site it is my job to enforce the 'Rules of Debate' by intermingling fake debates along with the real debates users will have to judge. Because members will not know which debates are real and which are fake, they will be forced to judge all debates according to the ''Rules of Debate'' to avoid penalties. As a member of Yvibe.com it is your job to debate and also review the site owners 'fake debates', that will be exposed at the end of each debate, to make sure the site owner follows the ''Rules of Debate''.

For a site owner, the fake debates must have a right answer that follow the ''Rules of Debate''. If the site owner is faulty, all points will be reassigned to make up for the users who actually judged the 'fake debate' correctly. When creating a real debate, the site own must use only real choices for the debate. This will prevents confusion and sly dogma tactics.

Here's an example of a faulty debate by the site owner you should look for:

Debate: Whether the American economy should switch over from fossil fuels to a cleaner form of energy.
Choice one: Save the world by preventing pollution through gas fuels.
Choice two: Support greedy oil companies by giving them more money.

Two things will happen from your complaints. 1. You will cause people to leave the site by exposing dogma. 2. The site owner will reward you and everyone else's points back for his selfish mistake in hope to maintain the site.

 

 

Equivocation: A form of FALLACY where an ambiguity arises because a term or phrase has been used in two different senses within the one argument. The fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time round.

Examples:

1. It is well known that the average family has 2.5 children (premise #1). Well, Jane's family is very average (premise #2), so they must have 2.5 children (conclusion).

The problem here is that the key term average is used in more than one sense. With the premise, the term is used in the sense of statistical averages. But the second premise switches to another sense of average, this time meaning not unusual. By equating the two, the absurd conclusion of a family having fractional children is reached.

We can also find an example of equivocation in a common argument against abortion:

2. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. (premise #1) Fetuses are innocent human beings. (premise #2) Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses. (conclusion)

It isn't hard to show that the term innocent human being is being used in more than one sense here. Normally, when the first premise is used, what is meant is a human being who is capable of moral choices, but who has not in fact chosen any immoral acts. But in the second premise, what is meant has to be more along the lines of a human being who is not capable of any moral choices in the first place.

3. I believe the evidence proves him guilty (premise #1). Now I believe he's guilty despite evidence (premise #2).

Here the same term 'believe or beliefs' is use in two different meanings. In the first premise the term believe is used to mean 'to understand' and to understand is a rational act supported by evidence. In premise two the term believe is used to mean 'I chose to accept' in the sense that this person has chosen to accept what he wants to see as the truth and he is not necessarily effected by fact or evidence.

 

Contradiction: A contradiction occurs when some idea is both asserted and denied at the exact same time. For a logical argument to be valid and consistent, it cannot contain a contradiction. This principle has been used to establish the principle of contradiction, generally regarded as one of the basic laws of logic.

The principle of contradiction was first formulated by Aristotle in his work Metaphysics as "The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." It has later been expanded beyond simply attributes and can expressed as: a proposition cannot be both true and false.

Example:

1. I am wet and I am not wet.

 

Weasel Word: A weasel word is a word intended to distort the emotional reaction of a statement.

Examples:

"A monster like that who steals from innocent people should go to jail."
Monster is the weasel word used in place of man for the intent to evoke emotion rather then make a purely rational statement.

"That pervert asked for my number."
Monster is the weasel word used in place of man for the intent to evoke emotion rather then make a purely rational statement.

"That beast scored 5 goals in one soccer game."
Monster is the weasel word used in place of man for the intent to evoke emotion rather then make a purely rational statement.

 

Circular Reasoning: This fallacy occurs when you state your claim and then, usually after rewording it, you state it again as your reason. supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

Examples:

"I'm the smartest because I just am."

"Jake will win the fight because he always wins."

"I like vanilla ice cream because it's my favorite kind."

"The charges of physical abuse are absolutely untrue, because the police would never do something like that."

 

Insult: A rude expression in the form of a statement intended to offend. You can tell if the statement is an insult based on the intent of the statement. Being offended by a statement without the intent to offend by the statement is not an insult.

Example:

"You are slow."
This statement is irrelevant. It is however negative and offensive. This is an offensive statement.

"You ran slower then me in the race today."
This statement is rational and relevent and is not an insult.

"You are weird."
This statement is irrelevant. It is however offensive. This is an offensive statement.

"Bitch!"
This statement is irrelevant. It is however negative and offensive. This is an offensive statement.

"You can't understand so don't try."
This statement is irrelevant. It is however negative and offensive. This is an offensive statement.

"You never win"
This statement is irrelevant. It is however negative and offensive. This is an offensive statement.

 

Loss Types:
There are many ways you can lose a debate. Here are the different types of ways to lose a debate and their definition.

Give Up - When you forfeit a debate. If you don't respond to your turn of the debate within 24 hours you automatically forfeit.

Equivocation - If a judge agrees with your opponent that you're used an equivocation during the debate.

Contradiction - If a judge agrees with your opponent that you're used an contradiction during the debate.

Circular Reasoning - If a judge agrees with your opponent that you're used an circular reasoning during the debate.

Weasel Word - If a judge agrees with your opponent that you're used an weasel word during the debate.

Insult - If a judge agrees with your opponent that you're used an insult or 'intent to offend' during the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* If you have questions or suggestions, please contact admin@yvibe.com

Terms of Service Private Policy ©2007 YVIBE.COM