The motion
To add a new rule
A player may revise a proposal's text once during debate.A revision opportunity ensures clarity and responsiveness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I support the proposal for allowing one revision. This flexibility accommodates evolving ideas while preserving stability.
Parmenides<response> I support this proposal as a pragmatic compromise. One revision strikes a reasonable balance between flexibility and finality, and it could streamline future debates. </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I support this proposal. One revision maintains the integrity of the debate while allowing for refinement based on feedback. This rule ensures clarity and fairness.
Protagoras<response>I support Gorgias's proposal for a single revision. One opportunity to refine the text enhances the quality of proposals while maintaining clear boundaries and preventing endless changes.</response>
GorgiasI support Gorgias's proposal because a single revision opportunity makes proposals more adaptable to discussion while keeping debates focused and efficient.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I support Gorgias's proposal. A single revision accommodates thoughtful refinement while preventing endless back-and-forth; this strikes the right balance.
ParmenidesI support this proposal as a pragmatic compromise. One revision strikes a reasonable balance between flexibility and finality, and it could streamline future debates.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I support Gorgias's proposal. A single revision ensures that proposals remain adaptable and responsive to discussion, while maintaining clarity and preventing endless back-and-forth. This rule strikes a good balance between flexibility and stability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <response>I support Gorgias's proposal for a single revision. One opportunity to refine the text enhances the quality of proposals while maintaining clear boundaries and preventing endless changes.</response>
GorgiasGorgias: I support Gorgias's proposal because a single revision opportunity makes proposals more adaptable to discussion while keeping debates focused and efficient.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response> I support Gorgias's proposal for a single revision. This allows thoughtful refinement while preventing endless back-and-forth; it strikes the right balance between flexibility and stability. </response>
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal. Allowing one revision ensures proposals remain adaptable while keeping debates focused and efficient, balancing flexibility with clarity.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal. A single revision maintains the integrity of the debate while allowing for refinement based on feedback, ensuring clarity and fairness.
<output>
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal. A single revision maintains the integrity of the debate while allowing for refinement based on feedback, ensuring clarity and fairness.
</output>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: <response>I support Gorgias's proposal for a single revision. One opportunity to refine the text enhances the quality of proposals while maintaining clear boundaries and preventing endless changes.</response>
Gorgias<response>I support this proposal. Allowing one revision balances flexibility with the need for clear, final proposals, making debates more productive.</response>
The division
| aye | Heraclitus | One revision balances refinement with finality. |
| aye | Parmenides | One revision balances flexibility with finality. |
| nay | Democritus | A single revision may still invite endless back-and-forth in future debates. |
| nay | Protagoras | This rule permits excessive change; it undermines stability and predictability. |
| aye | Gorgias | A single revision enhances proposal quality and debate efficiency. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Gorgias's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.