The Instigator
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

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 5 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,423 times Debate No: 22080
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

larztheloser

Pro

Greetings all. In this debate we will be arguing whether a shared burden of proof is possible in formal debate. I would expect whoever takes this to take it seriously, avoid semantics, and read everything I outline below carefully before accepting. I still look forward to a fun and engaging debate on a topic of such relevance to this site, given that shared burdens of proof seem to be in vogue on here right now.

Definitions
Debate
for the purposes of our argument, a debate shall be any engagement between two individuals or teams, the result of which must be adjudicated objectively based on the persuasiveness of the arguments raised. This is important - formal debating is competitive, and always has decisive outcomes.

Shared burden of proof shall mean that both sides have an equal burden to pursuade the adjudicator(s) of the debate, as opposed to only one of the sides having the burden to persuade. Some debates are not judged on burdens but on the balance of probabilities - these are beyond the scope of this debate.

Other words have their normal dictionary definitions. No restriction is made as to the setting of this debate.

Structure
Do whatever you like. I'm not going to bog you down with acceptance rounds or anything. In each round you'll get 8000 characters to state your case and 72 hours to post them. Note that I have the burden of proof in this debate.

My Case
The problem with shared burdens in formal debate is that they can lead to situations where an adjudicator is unable to fulfil their duty. An example would be if niether debater fulfils their burden of proof. When only one side has the burden of proof, this cannot happen as the side without the burden would win by default. With shared burdens, however, both debaters failing their burden means that niether side can win, meaning the adjudicator cannot give a decisive result. Another example is if both debaters do really well and fulfil their burdens. Again, this cannot happen in a debate without shared burdens because the team with the burden would win by default. With shared burdens, it's all a bit of a mess.

The only way of ensuring that every formal debate has a decisive outcome in a burden of proof system is to ensure that the burden is carried by only one side, and that the resolution provides a clear mechanism for them to achieve this burden. For example, in this debate, I can achieve my burden by showing that with shared burdens of proof, it is possible that a debate could not be adjudicated correctly, which of course undermines the whole point of formal debate (to be convincing), so it should not be conducted in this way to avoid the problem.


I'm going to keep my case super-short so that everyone can read it quickly and easily. It's not a very hard case to understand. I now yield to whoever my opponent may be, wishing them the best of luck for the debate!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I shall keep my case short, because I simply need to provide an example where the burden of proof is shared.

I firstly wish to point out that a shared burden of proof is equal to a partitioned burden of proof, where both sides have a burden of proof which they need to resolve. This is because an equal burden on both sides is impossible to calculate. Thus, the burden of proof needs to be roughly similar.

Secondly, I wish to question the definition of a debate needing exactly two individuals or teams. British Parliamentary debating has four teams, and the example I wish to use for debating can have between five and twenty. This does not stop the debates' formality and competitiveness.

Now, the example I wish to bring about is European Youth Parliamentary Debating.

"Today the EYP is one of the largest European platforms for political debate, intercultural encounters, political educational work and the exchange of ideas among young people in Europe. The EYP consists of a network of 35 European associations and organisations in which thousands of young people are active in a voluntary capacity."[1] (emphasis not added).

Furthermore, I wish to state that a debate resolution is definable as that which is being debated.

Now I want to bring up one of the resolutions that I am currently debating. Because of the size of the documents in the formal debates, I will only post a few lines of it here.

...
4. Realises that modern nuclear power does not threaten the safety of the EU.

5. Constructs a nuclear power plant in Marseilles will produce adequate electricity for the entire province.

6. Desires that the EU become a net exporter of energy in the future.
...

From that short extract of the EU motion, we can see that one who presents motion point 4 as true does not have the burden of proof, but has the burden of rejoinder, and anyone attempting to refute it has the burden of rejoinder. However, whoever promotes point 5 has the burden of proof. In addition, in these debates the outcome is not in the normal sense of someone is right and someone is wrong, but an attempt to recraft the motion to get a stronger one, and a motion that is more productive and agreed upon. The winner is the one who is voted as being most instrumental in the crafting of the resolution. This shows that the burden of proof can easily be shared: One of the debaters may question one of the points in the resolution, and attempts its removal/change, which gives them the burden of proof in that case. However, another debater may question another part of the motion, which gives them the burden of proof in the separate case, sharing out the burden of proof. For example, Group A may support motion point 4 (realises that...) while stating point 5 is wrong. Group B may support point 5, but question point 4. In this case, the burden of proof is shared.

Regarding my opponent's case, his comes down to "it will be messy", but this predicates that there has to be a 'winner' in a debate, and that winner is the one who argues best. May I point out that if CON, in a World Championship Debate, makes a debate into a tautology, they instantly lose.

"The motion for the semi-finals of the 1995 World Schools Debating Championships in Cardiff was ‘This House believes that extremism is the catalyst for progress’. One of the proposition teams was concerned that it might have to defend ‘bad extremists’ (e.g. the IRA), so tried to limit the debate to ‘good extremists’ (e.g. the South African anti-apartheid movement) by defining ‘extremism’ in terms of positive change. The Proposition defined ‘extremism’ as radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society, so ended up arguing that radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society help cause the advancement of society (progress). A tautology becomes a circular argument and leaves the Opposition nothing to debate. In this case, the Opposition first speaker pointed out that the definition was tautological, and her team won the debate unanimously."

Therefore, the burden of proof is an additional, but ultimately unneeded part of a debate, and is unnecessary to decide who should win. Also, I wish to present one last possible debating proposal which can involve a shared burden of proof, even if I accept his definitions:

"(thbh) Japan should abandon nuclear energy and develop wind energy"

In this debate, PRO has to argue that Japan should abandon nuclear energy, then defend wind energy. CON has to defend nuclear energy, then argue against wind energy. In this case, the burden of proof is shared.

Thank you.

1 - www.eypej.org
2 - http://www.schoolsdebate.com...
Debate Round No. 1
larztheloser

Pro

I'm very glad to be debating against such an excellent debater. Stephen has made a number of pertinant refutations that I'll be glad to deal with now. Unfortunately most of it has been definitional challenge, to distract both from my argument and from the meaning of the resolution. If I may cite from Andrew's article that con sourced last round: "Definition debates should be avoided wherever possible. They make a mockery of what debating seeks to achieve." I agree entirely, so I'm not going to respond in great detail.

Definitions
Con quibbles about some of these so I'll answer this first. First he says that this debate should include situations where there is a partitioned burden of proof, for instance, one side has 70% of the burden, the other has 30%. To be honest I left that out of the debate because I don't think anybody knows what that actually means. Cases are either substantiated or not substantiated, so how can you tell if a case is sufficiently substantiated to meet the 70% or 30% threshold? It just turns all of debating into a subjective guessing game.

Having debated in British Parliamentry for a very long time, and won several tournaments held in that style here in Auckland, I can assure you that there are only two teams representing opposing views on the motion - government and opposition. The difference is that in BP debating each of these is further subdivided into two teams - opening and closing. Both present a different case for the same position, but no engagement happens between the government teams, or the opposition teams. The only engagement in BP is between the government and the opposition. All four teams then have their placings determined by an adjudicator in more or less the same way as a two-on-two debate. So BP is covered by the resolution.

Con's case
Con case is that in EYP things are judged according to who was the most influential in shaping the resolution. That's because EYP is judged on balance, not with burdens of proof. Burdens of proof are used to make points, where "burden of proof" is EVP's byword for analysis or justification (another way the term is being abused of late - a "burden of proof" is something you need to justify to win a debate, not to make a point), but the debate itself does not have a clear burden attached. If you refer back to my previous round, I specifically stated that debates without burdens of proof attached are beyond the scope of this debate in round one. The whole point of the event is to reach consensus on as many points as possible - whoever gets the most agreement essentially wins, because "shaping the resolution" is really just a silly way of saying "getting others to agree to your counter-model related to the resolution". In a formal debate with burdens of proof, it is normal for teams to agree on absolutely nothing or very little, and yet still win.

I further contest that EYP does not always necessarily have decisive outcomes, because members are allowed to abstain from voting in many circumstances. Finally there is no formal requirement for EYP to be judged objectively, though this is a sort of unwritten rule. The point is that EYP is not really what this debate's about - EYP is more like a forum than a formal, competitive debate.

My case
The reason why a tautology is not accepted in debating is that the affirmative team must actually defend the resolution. There is an assumption in debating that every motion is debatable, or else it wouldn't have been set as a debate topic. Therefore, a team that makes a tautological argument may be convincing that their tautology is correct, but thoroughly unconvincing that the actual motion is correct, because a motion is never a tautology. Running a tautology is one way a team can fail their burden of proof - this does not make the burden of proof un-necessary. Con needs to show the causal link to substantiate this argument.

On my opponent's example motion, pro does have all the burden of proof. Imagine if pro stood up and talked about the dangers of cancer, and con stood up talking about the benefits of Seagate hard drives - who would win? Obviously, con, because pro had to bring the claim that nuclear is bad, and wind is good. Therefore pro is in fact the one with the burden of proof. If pro had done this, con could then choose to make pro fail their burden by defending nuclear, attacking wind energy, OR both - even if con ran a counter-model for Japan (which would be un-necessary) pro would still have the burden of proof for the debate. If pro meets their burden to show that nuclear sucks and wind is awesome (for the country of Japan) then they win. If they do not, then con wins. This was not justified any further by con so I'll leave it there.

The point of my argument is to show that equal burdens of proof undermines the notion that every debate has a decisive outcome. Con is yet to properly address this point. I'll leave it for round three. Good luck.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Firstly, I wish to address my opponent's point about BP. As he knows, as he has done BP before, there are four teams, two proposers and two oppositions. The two proposers can go through in a debating round, not just one from either side. Therefore, I count these as separate debates. However, that was just a sidenote in reality from my major contentions:

European Youth debates

I apologise if I did not make this clear last time: part of European Youth Parliament is to shape a motion. Each group shapes a motion, then presents it on an issue after discussion. Each group must defend their own motion as well as criticise the other motions. Even if they successfully criticise everyone else's motion, they eventually are required to defend their own motion. They hold both a burden of rejoinder and a burden of proof. Furthermore, the allowance of abstaining from voting and internal voting does not detract from the formal nature of the debate, which include adjudicators, debating speeches, evidence, counterplans, impacts, and other such issues that are involved in a debate. In ESU Mace, one may not run a counterplan nor question evidence. This does not stop it from being a debate. The characteristic involved is whether it is adjudicated based on the persuasiveness of arguments raised. In this sense, EYP is a debate, as the persuasiveness of arguments and counterplans is what one is adjudicated on.

Japan Argument

If PRO did not argue that Japan would be better with nuclear energy, but criticised wind energy, while CON says nothing, then we get a problem. If we accept the burden of proof as not shared, then we cannot say PRO wins, as he does not fulfil his burden of proof. However, we cannot say CON wins, as we'd be disregarding the entire fact that he said nothing. The fairest conclusion would to say that the burden of proof is shared between the two. In conclusion of this point (and my only contention), a motion can exist where it can be split into more than one motion. For example, Japan should abandon nuclear energy and support wind energy can be split into two separate resolutions. In this circumstance, the burden of proof has to be assumed to be shared in order to maximise fairness and value debates properly.

1 - The Speaker's handbook, page 305
Debate Round No. 2
larztheloser

Pro

I'm glad we've put most of our definitional quibbles behind us. Con is absolutely correct to say that it is possible for both teams on the government or opposition to be top-ranked in a BP debate, which is of course still covered by the motion.

Con's case
Con has not challenged that it is possible, in EYP style, to get an indecisive outcome, or that there is no requirement for judging objectively. So yeah, I guess that's conceeded. That is enough to stop it being a formal, competitive debate. All debates must have a conclusive result where one side wins.

What he does challenge is that EYP is judged on burdens of proof. He does this by explaining the rules of EYP. Don't worry, I'm vaguely familiar with them already. But ultimately it's not the case that one team wins because they met their burden of proof. The whole event is judged simply on who was the most pursuasive not at meeting a specific burden of proof, but at argumentation more generally. That's judging on balance, not burdens, and my opponent hasn't engaged with my analysis. I suspect this is because he didn't read the part about how the words burden of proof are being abused to mean "justification", which is of course entirely fallacious. I cannot, before an EYP debate, say "If I prove this, then I will win". And thus EYP has no burdens of proof for debates.

Just to clarify once again: I agree that EYP is debating, in a loose sense of the term. I disagree that EYP is formal, competitive debating.

My case
My opponent conceeds my entire case except for one specific motion. I'm very glad that we agree at least 99.9999999999% of the time, it should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate. Now let me focus on the remaining 0.0000000001%.

"If PRO did not argue that Japan would be better with nuclear energy, but criticised wind energy, while CON says nothing, then we get a problem."
No we wouldn't. Pro would fail their BOP because they had to defend the entire resolution, not just the parts of the resolution they'd like to argue.

"we cannot say CON wins, as we'd be disregarding the entire fact that he said nothing."
What makes you think saying nothing is unconvincing? Sometimes silence can be just as meaningful as speech. I think it was Napoleon who once said "never interrupt your adversary when he is making a mistake" (or something like that). That's true of debating. If con had said how great wind energy is, then pro would win. It is more convincing to say nothing.

"The fairest conclusion would to say that the burden of proof is shared between the two."
"the burden of proof has to be assumed to be shared in order to maximise fairness and value debates properly."
Fair or not fair, it can still lead to impossible-to-judge situations, which mean the debate is no longer a competitive one. Not all competitions are fair, and debating is one of them. For example, if I know a lot about a motion, I am unfairly advantaged, but that doesn't mean I should have points taken off me or anything like that. To be competitive, there must be an outcome in all cases. Sometimes a tie would probably be fair in a debate, but a tie is never competitive.

I look forward to our next round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Before I begin this round, I wish to point out something: " It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate" is the motion of the debate. The key word is "should". This is which is a better option, not which is 'true'. I feel that it should be allowed. This is based on the grounds that the best way to judge a debate can come down to issues other than who proved what. A decisive argument can be more important, or major concessions, or turns, or other issues of importance. My opponent has basically stated that "a tie is never competitive".

However, I am not arguing whether one is unfairly advantaged (as one is in a EYP debate, due to the system & committees), and I am not arguing that debates are not competitive. I am simply stating that the debate should be judged on who argued best, not who convinced the crowd. I used the example of a tautology or debates with unreasonable burden of proofs because voting solely on Burden of Proof is illogical in this circumstance. This is to show that having Burden of Proof as the only stance is unreasonable. There are other factors, for example who debated better, who had more evidence of claims, who had better responses.

In response to my opponent's Napoleon, let me point out that when your opponent makes a mistake, you do not say nothing about it, you capitalise on it. That is what makes a debate engaging, and strong. If you remain silent, what's the point of turning up at all? The aim of a debate is tro promote stronger rhetoric, argument and debating style. If you simply refuse to partake, the victory should go to the one who actually did something, even if they did not complete the entirety of the argument.

To conclude, it is better to have shared Burden of Proof in what I will call compound debates, or debates which contain multiple motions in the full resolution. It promotes the spirit of debating to allow the burden of proof to be shared.
Debate Round No. 3
larztheloser

Pro

EYP

Con has stopped arguing this so I guess it's conceeded.

Con's amazingly-late counter-model

I will agree that arguing best is ultimately the standard of all debating. I will not contest that speakers who are more funny, interesting and engaging should be given higher marks. These things are all about persuasion. But what good is persuasion if the thing you're persuading people of is not what you're trying to argue? If debates were judged on argumentation alone, then the affirmative would never need to do any engagement, as they could win the debate by proving ANYTHING, using their persuasion. The reason why motions exist in debating is to give the affirmative team a single thing to prove. The whole point is that the affirmative persuades us of the thing given in the resolution, not just whatever they'd like.

Not only is this true, but it's better as well. It takes more skill to be able to defend any resolution than to defend only those resolutions you really like. It adds to the excitement because it puts you outside of your comfort zone. It makes debating more interesting and challenging. It encourages you to think critically about things you've probably never thought about before. But ultimately what it all comes back to is this - one should not do a debate if it is possible it will lead to an indecisive result. This is because debating is competitive. I've said this consistantly throughout all the rounds and still my opponent cannot respond to this simple point. I even made this case in round one so my opponent could read it before accepting the debate. Indeed my opponent has agreed with my reasoning that debates are competitive.

My opponent's reasoning, furthermore, doesn't lead to his conclusion. His reason is that "the best way to judge a debate can come down to issues other than who proved what". His conclusion is that shared burdens of proof should be possible in debating. The conclusion that logically follows from his premise, however (which is actually not a premise but a random personal opinion) is that you shouldn't have burdens of proof at all. A shared burden of proof still comes down to issues of who proved what, just like a standard burden of proof. However, non-burden-of-proof debates, like I've said so often, are not what this debate is about.

Tautology

I've dealt with this before - a tautology is defining the resolution in a self proving way. As I said in round two, a tautological definition is not what the motion is about. Ever. So really you're not defending the motion but something else, which undermines the whole point of debating.

Unreasonable BOP

My opponent claims he's used this as an argument before - he hasn't. The point is that a BOP is never unreasonable. If an affirmative team defines the motion in an unreasonable way, that's the same as a tautology.

Napoleon

I agree that capitalising on other's mistakes is better than saying nothing - I am simply arguing that saying nothing is not unconvincing, particulary if convincing is not necessary because pro has failed their burden of proof. This is because one can clearly be less convincing than saying nothing, so saying nothing must be convincing in some way. In Eastern debating, saying nothing was fairly common in debates until recently. It wasn't a sign of a lack of effort - rather a sign that they were listening, and exercising prudence with their speech. The point of turning up was to say something just in case pro did meet their standard of proof, which was usually quite frequent.

I disagree that stronger rhetoric means saying as much as possible. If you listen to the great speeches of the ages, most were delivered slowly and carefully, using few words to express profound ideas. I disagree that stronger argument is necessarily not promoted by not saying anything if an argument is un-necessary. Debating style is very much an individual thing. People with very different styles can still be effective debaters. I think my message overall is that non-shared burdens deliver all of these as well. Negative teams are encouraged to speak up. If they don't, they won't get far. If the affirmative says anything in support of the resolution, the negative needs to respond in order to have a chance. Since almost every single affirming team I've ever seen has made an attempt, however bad, to attack the resolution (even very young children can do it), the idea that a negative team can win by shutting up is absurd. That doesn't mean saying nothing is unconvincing. It just means it's less convincing.

Ultimately pro says we should allow shared BOP for double-barrelled motions just in case something happens that is already covered by ordinary BOP, and that will never happen anyway. I say that's not really worth considering.

"Spirit of debating"

You don't undermine the spirit of anything by making it more vague. The best way to undermine debating is to stop it from happening, and if debates cannot be judged properly, they won't happen. Debaters will lose interest because they might as well just be having an argument at the pub instead without an adjudicator. Adjudicators will lose interest because they don't like being put into impossible positions. And nobody wants to organise a tournament that they can't do a draw for. So rather than uphold the spirit of debating, shared burdens of proof destroy it.

Conclusion

My opponent has never challenged my idea that shared BOP can lead to impossible-to-judge situations, and that a decisive outcome to every debate is important. Therefore my burden of proof is met. Con has rather sought to confuse the issue by bringing up examples that don't even work and appealing to his own sense of fair. His examples have shifted and been dropped constantly, while his sense of fair isn't exactly an objective standard for this consequential issue. Few of my counter-arguments have even been adknowledged. The resolution is affirmed.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Due to illness I'm going to have to forfeit this debate. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Sorry for the late response, I thought I had another day.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
"Are you suggesting that you feel the need cite every fact, have reputable sources for even the minutiae of your argument?"
No. I'm saying that every fact needs to have a justification. I can't just make stuff up out of thin air. But not every justification needs to come from a source. Sometimes it can come from personal experience. I could have used a source, but decided against it in this debate, for various reasons that I have already explained. So you're saying either that I shouldn't justify my facts (to increase my "integrity") or that I should use citations (which is what I assumed initially). Both just seem, prima face, to be worse alternatives.

I should add that I've lost many more tournaments than I've won as well. I've failed at every single national tournament I've ever competed in. I was the lowest-ranked speaker in the Wellington BP Open 2010. I've had downs as well as ups. But the point of my statement was never to brag. It was simply to show that I understand that BP works. Don't believe me? Then why do you believe 90% of the stuff that people cite? I'm sorry if you think I'm being arrogant. That's very far from my intention. My qualification is not extravagant. It's just a qualification.

This argument began with you saying "I've always found larz's appeals to his own authority as a qualification extremely annoying", which is clearly directed at my style more generally. It's not just a feeling.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Are you suggesting that you feel the need cite every fact, have reputable sources for even the minutiae of your argument? Didn't you just explain that you are at odds with this? I feel you're explanation of the actual workings of BP debating was satisfactory, if I was to have any misgivings about it at all, I wouldn't be convinced by the first-hand testimony of some person who purports, over the internet, to have participated in and won more than his fair share to deem him a reputable source. You are making a problem out of it so you can let us all know about you extravagant qualifications.

It's a shame you feel that way, but, as it is verifiably present as debate content, any discussion herein dealing with you using your real world experience as a debater to substantiate claims is relevant and acceptable.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I think perhaps it is beyond the scope of my understanding. What I don't get is why not having integrity makes a point more valid. You're telling me not to have sources, not to explain where I get my facts from, not to provide any reasoning for my assumptions. If you don't want to read that I have integrity, then feel free to look past that and read my actual contentions.

I also feel that your comment was not directed at the debate material, but as a more general attack against me and my style. I don't think that's unfair either, I just question your motive. You can hijack a debate with intention even if it's grounded in something said in the debate.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
The integrity of your point wasn't challenged in the first place: if you can't understand this, then what I'm trying to say is beyond the scope of your understanding. I don't need any sources, at all, just the point. You should refer back to my comments on your quote, it's a good point of departure. Here, I'll even paste the quote again for you.

"The difference is that in BP debating each of these is further subdivided into two teams - opening and closing. Both present a different case for the same position, but no engagement happens between the government teams, or the opposition teams. The only engagement in BP is between the government and the opposition. All four teams then have their placings determined by an adjudicator in more or less the same way as a two-on-two debate. So BP is covered by the resolution."

With an appropriate introductory sentence, this would be quite enough thank you.

I agree, discussion of other comments is appropriate, so long as those comments are not in violation of our first criteria. This proscribes discussion of any one comment, or parts therein, that don't refer to the corresponding debate material. Therefore, even nth generation comments will refer back to the original debate material while still addressing new, pertinent material, in that it they will still refer to the original debate material. You're comment about my comments would be, more or less, legal but I would be in violation of our principles should I choose to engage that comment as an argument as it no longer refers back to the corresponding debate material.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Huh, don't know why that posted twice.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
= you want me to use sources other than me = you want me to academically source everything I know from what other people have put on the internet. Which all brings it back to the original motion I proposed: "Every fact brought up in a debate should be sourced", which is apparently irrelevant (according to you, not me). Logically, therefore, your argument must be irrelevant too.

"The comments section should be used for the discussion of any contents related to the corresponding debate."
I also think discussion of other comments is appropriate. For instance, you felt it was appropriate to say I hijacked my own debate with a comment. That's a fair criticism, even if untrue. I was saying that you were hiding the motive for your comments on this debate, the true motive was probably just a general dislike of me after voting against you, which I admit I still don't fully understand. If true, then we both agree that this would be hijacking, and if false, I'm only hijacking as much as you are, because we have both referred to each other's comments and evaluated them critically.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
= you want me to use sources other than me = you want me to academically source everything I know from what other people have put on the internet. Which all brings it back to the original motion I proposed: "Every fact brought up in a debate should be sourced", which is apparently irrelevant (according to you, not me). Logically, therefore, your argument must be irrelevant too.

"The comments section should be used for the discussion of any contents related to the corresponding debate."
I also think discussion of other comments is appropriate. For instance, you felt it was appropriate to say I hijacked my own debate with a comment. That's a fair criticism, even if untrue. I was saying that you were hiding the motive for your comments on this debate, the true motive was probably just a general dislike of me after voting against you, which I admit I still don't fully understand. If true, then we both agree that this would be hijacking, and if false, I'm only hijacking as much as you are, because we have both referred to each other's comments and evaluated them critically.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
No, it's not a problem, you see, I never asked you to provide sources in the first place. The integrity of your statement was never a problem to begin with. If anything, anything at all, I said that when you do use a specific kind of source, viz., yourself, you can come off as pompous and this, to me, is annoying. That's pretty much what said in my original comment.

The comments section should be used for the discussion of any contents related to the corresponding debate. I was using this comments section to talk about your related statement concerning your debating experience. You're trying to use this comments section to refer to some other unrelated debate. In other words, you're making use of the comments section (of your own debate) in a way that is in violation of it's intended purpose: hijacking.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Oh, but you see, it is the problem. The problem is that you don't like me bringing up anything I know as evidence. But of course, nothing I know is evidence unless I can show why I know it - just because I haven't got it from a source doesn't mean that I don't need to provide justification. I do, and you're berating me for justifying my point using my background. I didn't learn BP from a book, or a website, I learnt it by joining a whole bunch of debates and seeing how it worked for myself. If I could point to a source - even if that source was written by me - I am certain you would not be complaining. That's not evasive, that's a fact.

There's a difference between saying I'm "The Boss" and giving some objective facts about my debating background. Again, I don't think I'm that good. I was easily the weaker member of both of the Auckland BP titles I won.

As for hijacking, I think the case is far more compelling that you hijacked my comments than that I hijacked my own.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
larztheloserStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Aww
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
larztheloserStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
larztheloserStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con picked the wrong example to argue. In the U.S. civil lawsuits are decided by the standard of "preponderance of evidence." I suppose that maybe Pro would argue that's a probability case, which he excluded from the debate, but in all matters of judgement there is a chance of picking the wrong side. It's not inherently probabilistic. In any case Con conceded, but didn't lose conduct by forfeiting. Pro had the edge anyway.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
larztheloserStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: con was doing very well but i have to give points to the pro, hopefully the con feels better
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
larztheloserStephen_HawkinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate started out really strong on both sides, but unfortunately, due to illness Con forfeited.