The Instigator
RockvilleSoftworks
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
autodidact
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 31657
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

RockvilleSoftworks

Pro

I am officially a noob on this website... I have but one forum post... And this is my first official debate... The question is, am I capable of making a good argument, and speaking for all the people out there who are or were once noobs, I claim that I should be judged as coherent by the debate.org community until gone astray..
autodidact

Con

Thank you RockvilleSoftworks for this debate.

There is no reason to, as a default, consider one to be a coherent debater over some other position.

I noticed on your profile that you and I are very different but I did notice you are an atheist. perhaps you may know who Chad Elliot is, if not see the link. [1][2][3]

I myself am of the view that a default judgments of "capable" or "incapable" should be withheld till relevant data can be aggregated. In cases like Chad Elliot relevant data was available before he was a noob at DDO (he has since deleted his profile) but in general the default position should be undecided.

Pro asks "The question is, am I capable of making a good argument, and speaking for all the people out there who are or were once noobs,[sic]"
Yes, any noob could be capable of making a good argument, but it is also true that any noob could also be capable of a bad argument. It is clear that this question has no bearing on the proposition because its inverse is also true. this means that while Pro is theoretically capable of a good argument, one has yet to be presented. to show the default should be capable rather than undecided as I am proposing.

[1]https://encyclopediadramatica.se...
[2]https://www.facebook.com...
[3]http://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RockvilleSoftworks

Pro

I took a look at your profile also, and we are indeed natural opposites... Your "references" include one dead link (temporarily possibly), and two pages whose content features a person who I do not know of... It also does not help that you didn't explain his role in this argument, so maybe you could clear that up next round...

If you are familiar with the US court system (or basically any modern court system for that matter), we are all innocent until proven guilty. Not that I am being tried in a court case, but I want to stress that the system nowadays does not consider us neutral to start with, but innocent. Given that just like in a court case, we are debating (even though it is not over whether the defendant committed a crime), this should be more or less treated as if we were in court. I am a good debater until proven otherwise.
autodidact

Con

The source links all worked when i just checked them.

It does not matter too much that you don't know who Chad is, as long as you understand that those who had known him before he joined DDO and was a noob here had no reason to think him capable at the point that he did join/become a noob. Assigning a default of capable would go contrary to previous knowledge. Chad is an example of why a noobs need not be automatically thought of as capable.

Pro notes how the US court system is based on the default of innocent until proven guilty. This idea of pro's does not apply to capable or incapable. Presumed innocence is important in a legal system because it is the default position and the inherent difficulty of proving the negative claim of not guilty increases the wrongful convictions in a system the presumes guilt.

When it comes to capable and incapable there is no default towards capable, and no sizable harm to being thought of as incapable. Furthermore unlike guilt and innocence capable and incapable is a continuum. An argument could be made that the default should be incapable because as infants we are incapable and some, not all progress from there. Add to this the fact that capable and incapable are both as easily proven and it is clear that the suggestion of a default of capable is not well reasoned.

Pro claims "I am a good debater until proven otherwise."
Such a claim has yet to be proven

So in summery, we have examples of noobs who via previous experiences are clearly not justified to be thought of as capable by default, no clear reason to think that capable is the default, and reasoning to consider incapable the default
Debate Round No. 2
RockvilleSoftworks

Pro

QUOTE: "So in summery [sic], we have examples of noobs who via previous experiences are clearly not justified to be thought of as capable by default, no clear reason to think that capable is the default, and reasoning to consider incapable the default"

Hold it right there, you have only partially disproved my argument, which for the nature of this argument counts for nothing. You justified that those that hold an identity such that we can identify them with "noobish" behavior should not be considered a neutral arguer (between being having superior debating skills and "noobish" skills). The remaining part is the hardest, which is the part that you've neglected.

You will now need to prove why somebody with a blank profile, name kept private, and 0 posts (and debates and comments), should be considered to be a neutral arguer until proven otherwise. Just like we supposedly have no right to consider them to be a good arguer or a bad arguer by default, what makes the logic sway in the direction of being a neutral arguer. We can assume considering somebody to be neutral means considering them average, and we can assume for the purpose of this debate that there is an equal distrubution below and above that threshhold. What argument can support this "labeling" of somebody as neutral rather than good to initialize, or even bad for this matter. For this round, I have chosen a strategy of proving not necessarily why this "labeling" of someone as average is worse than "labeling" them as pro, provided there is no evidence on either side, but rather putting a burden of proof on my opponent to reason why there is an advantage over another method over the proposed one, and therefore I am not shifting the focus of the debate, which may be claimed. If there is a superior method, that will make the assumption of being "good until proven bad" inferior.

I leave you a chance to justify this missing point in the last iteration of this debate, and so I will have no say after this, but I have chosen to take the risk and leave you the opporitunity to bring your point of view to a strong finish, provided that it is even possible to have a strong finish in this debate.
autodidact

Con

Pro declares "Hold it right there, you have only partially disproved my argument, which for the nature of this argument counts for nothing."

This is common thoughts found in incapable noobs. We see Pro acknowledge that his argument was refuted in part and then dictates what counts or not, a question that is for the voters to decide. It also shows that perhaps Pro lacks understanding on what BoP is in a debate like this.

So voters I ask please reread Pro's arguments and is his view justified as a rule of thumb when it comes to this debate "Capable until proven incabable[sic]"

Now I don't mean to pick on Pro. Most noobs lose their first debate, as I lost my first. perhaps in the future RockvillSoftworks will be more articulate on his points. I am sure if I had a chance to repeat my first debate that I would win it this time around.

Thank you for this debate. I wish you luck in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RockvilleSoftworks 3 years ago
RockvilleSoftworks
I hope to be prolific on this site. Thanks.
No votes have been placed for this debate.