The Instigator
dr.doom
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
ruth421963
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Arguments on debate.org should be more technical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,069 times Debate No: 604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (12)

 

dr.doom

Pro

note: if you have ever debated competitive in a formal circuit (HS/college), please don't challenge on this, I want to hear the opinions of one of the people I am talking about in obs. 2.

obs. 1: Framework
1. Debate is discourse on behalf of intellectuals
2. The point of debate online is to educate; it's not about presentation
3. In order to educate we must strive to learn truths about pre and post fiat worlds
4. Dropping any part of this framework in the 1st round will be considered a permanent agreement with that argument.
5. No new arguments in the 3rd round by either side.

obs. 2: Debate.org "debaters" don't debate technically
1. CRaP (Controversy, Rhetoric, and Persuasion) -- often called Public Forum in HS debate circles -- is equivocal to how many here "debate," and this discourse is aimed at persuasion and not finding truth.
2. No one on debate.org actually structures their arguments, and few provide evidence.

obs. 3: technical debate is best for the online forum.
1. We aren't presenting, and we won't gain anything from writing "persuasive" passages on-line.
2. debate.org is a unique opportunity to focus on the merits and warrants of arguments in depth instead of the communication of ideas.
3. Technical debate focuses on merits and warrants of arguments, which are communicated in an easy to understand but not superfluous way.
4. The real world requires CRaP: it's a more appropriate forum.
ruth421963

Con

I need to understand what the
heck you are debating? Clearly
I'm not a graduate of college.
I checked out some of your
ideas and you sound like
you want "hold onto your
caps" ME. I would love
to learn how to debate..
Come Get Me...Ruth
Debate Round No. 1
dr.doom

Pro

1. Clarification of framework
a. Frameworks are used to determine how best to debate. They often take into account philosophical issues pertaining to how we should view the round, as well as how to preserve fairness in the round.
b. Fiat is a tool that we can use in order to determine which of two worlds is more ideal. Basically, the implication is that I, as Pro, only have to prove that arguments should be more technical, not that it will be.
c. pre fiat means before that assumption. That is, that the point of debate is to education ourselves about the world during our actual arguments -- that these words ought be educational in and of themselves, regardless of rather or not we are talking about the implications of the topic.
d. post fiat means after that assumption. That is, that we ought to educate ourselves about the implications of a more technical debate.org.

2. clarification of Other Observations
Essentially, I'm saying that if we're going to debate online we should structure our arguments and follow the structure of our opponents arguments with more precision. I find rhetoric interesting, and it's very important to learn how to present persuasively, but the internet is not a forum where presentation skills can be adequately used or tested.
ruth421963

Con

First I would like to thank you for
some insight. Naturally I'd love to
learn as much on this as possible.
I follow and concur with the frame
work, I cant comment on CEDA{I'm going
out on a limb} some vital people who
live or die much like fine trail lawyers.?
Hey if anybody out here is beyond bored
and would love{like} to try and educate
me further, I'd be grateful.
Peace,
Miss Ruth A. Marland
Debate Round No. 2
dr.doom

Pro

dr.doom forfeited this round.
ruth421963

Con

First I'd like to say Thank You {debaters}
that issued not a single sign of help. I was
left out to hang. Hmm, tough group. Dr. Doom
do you fear me?
Peace & Merry Christmas!
Ruth
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
"No one on debate.org actually structures their arguments, and few provide evidence." Aside from he fact that dr.doom forfeited in round 3 and thereby loses, he would have lost my vote by claiming "no one" in his opening argument.

Welcome, Ruth
Posted by NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
The problem with Dr. Doom's argument here is that we don't need to be CEDA or NDT or even NFA's LD in order to have a structured debate. I grew up around NDT and NFA but I currently debate on the American Parliamentary Debate/British Parliamentary circuits and in those styles we manage to debate with reasonable, articulate arguments without any hint of evidence, jargon, metadebate, or even resolutions.

I think you have structured, well reasoned and properly thought out points and examples without a pre-defined structure or research based on a much broader range of topics than the policy formats ever approach.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
>I didn't realize I was using jargon because I'm so used to >the language, but 3&4 could be rather confusing. sorry.

Looks like I misjudged you. Sorry about that. WHere I come from, some people purposely challenge laymen and use policy jargon.

AVP is a term for the type of judge found in much of parliamentary debate. Debates you have should be pretty wild, what with different styles clashing. I'll be sure to look you up again after this.
Posted by Eick 9 years ago
Eick
Uggghh. CEDA is nasty enough at the collegic level. Let's try and not hinder novice debaters anymore than need be. While I agree that debates need framework, simple Aristilian forms should suffice.
Posted by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
"Of course, you'd also have to translate what you wrote so that non Policy, CEDA, whoever people can read it."

The only thing that isn't comprehensible with a decent internal lexicon is 3+4 on framework, which I admit I overlooked. Other than that, I lay person I just consulted was able to understand the entire thing quite easily.
Posted by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
(internal ellipses because I ran out of characters)

"How is it that you want to debate vs someone with no experience, and yet your framework is jargon-laden?"
I didn't realize I was using jargon because I'm so used to the language, but 3&4 could be rather confusing. sorry.

"If you are going to bully...by the criteria of the masses."
1. they aren't half-arguments, each one has a claim and a warrant, with the exception of a couple of the framework pieces which are opinion.
2. My point was this: if you agree with part of the framework, that's cool (for example, no new points in the last argument is a reasonable request.) But if you don't, please bring it up in your first round so that we can discuss it, because if you don't I'm going to assume you agree and find the request/idea reasonable.
3. I'm not trying to intimidate or bully anyone.
4. the comment field checks -- if someone doesn't understand what something means they can write out the rest of the round and post a comment asking me for clarification.

"I don't know about...AVP...person"."
That's awesome, I love it (that's not sarcasm)

"If I debate you, may I ask that judges also judge as average reasonable people? That is only fair, if it is the debate.org public you are really aiming to persuade. Oh, I'm sorry, not persuade! That would be C-R-A-P. I meant to say "intimidate into submission"."
To persuade isn't CRaP. to persuade by appealing to emotion and preconceptions is CRaP. And I don't believe CRaP is crap or bad, it's just a funny acronym (Heck, I like the S-H-I-T thing, and I advocate S-H-I-T). CRaP def. has it's place, but I argue that online debate should be structured because it's not about presentation.

"Of course...vote?"
I agree with the camps argument, and it's one of the reaons I posted this: more structured, technical debate at ALL levels of the debate, including judging.
And I'm cool with AVP, but someone already acepted :(. Post this resolution again and I'll accept.
Posted by JSV8709 9 years ago
JSV8709
For those that don't know debate terminology, pre and post fiat ought to be defined...
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Of course, you'd also have to translate what you wrote so that non Policy, CEDA, whoever people can read it.
If you assume you must keep your secret codes in order to maintain logic, then how can you debate a commoner like myself?
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
How is it that you want to debate vs someone with no experience, and yet your framework is jargon-laden?
If you are going to bully and threaten debaters by telling them what experience they should have, and that you will personally assume that they agree with you if they "drop" something (I assume that means "if they do not refute every implied half-argument in every round"), then it is only fair that the challenger can ask that judges judge, not by your criteria, but by the criteria of the masses.
I don't know about C-r-a-p, s-h-i-t, or The East Coast vs West Coast NPT-CEDA antics, so I suppose I will do as a challenger. After all, I'm just an AVP – no, not Aliens vs Predator, but an "Average Reasonable Person". If I debate you, may I ask that judges also judge as average reasonable people? That is only fair, if it is the debate.org public you are really aiming to persuade. Oh, I'm sorry, not persuade! That would be C-R-A-P. I meant to say "intimidate into submission".
Of course, most ordinary users of Debate.org are probably not going to vote on this one. I'm sure all people from your two camps will rush out to vote instead. But may we agree that they should make an "average reasonable Person" inside of themselves, and have that person vote?
If you agree, I'd gladly debate you.
Posted by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
wingnut: I never said that the debates have to be s technical as a good policy round, just that they should be more technical.

Structured outlines are a faster way for exchanging ideas than what most people are doing, anyway.

erik: That's funny. Does anyone have one for LD?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 week ago
Mharman
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ishamael_89 9 years ago
ishamael_89
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vulcan 9 years ago
Vulcan
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ryanqq 9 years ago
ryanqq
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
dr.doomruth421963Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30