[brudgers]

If two people are going to go back and forth on video, why not use YouTube or Google+ or Facebook?

Why not serve HTML video to everyone?

I wonder if scanning video for problematic content will be easier than text, e.g. 1/2 seconds of sexual content sprinkled in a five minute video may require watching the entire thing.

[srikieonline]

Youtube used to have video responses which they discontinued due to lack of engagement - however, Youtube is a very generic video site and not all types of videos are meant to have video responses. And if you give an option of text comment, most people may tend to use it first because they are familiar with it.

Existing social networks such as Youtube, Google+ or facebook are not conceptually designed for video debates & discussions - i.e showing all video responses of that specific topic in one place. "Related Videos" section does help a bit, but not fully.

Today, people are extensively using facebook to posts video selfies where they talk on a topic or express an opinion, but the responses are limited to text comments and it does not give the feel of a proper debate like people do in real life.

I've provided a feature of tagging a video response as "for", "against" or "not applicable" - thus giving it a Debate like feel.

Scanning for video content is a challenge - currently planning to do it manually till it becomes a scale problem, and also depend on the users to flag inappropriate videos.