The Instigator
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Ragnar_rahl should join Social's tourny

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
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 16740
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I have been presented with this proposition on my profile by the technically challenged user, Pro. This question was, unusually for Debate.org presented de novo, I have no directly applicable precedent on which to evaluate it, as such, I shall leave Pro to provide his arguments and then address them. I presume by "Should" he means that I would achieve more value than I would expend by joining such a tourney, and invite him to notify if I have misconstrued his intent.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I thank Ragnar for starting this debate.

To hold such a definition of "should," as my opponent has suggested would require that I assume that he makes choices based upon such a value system (if he obtains more value than he spends, he'll do it). If that is not the case, such a definition for "should" is meaningless. As he presented this definition of should, I will make that assumption, but before presenting my arguments, I will allow my opponent to confirm this. Or if I am mistaken, he can present what system he does use for making decisions (of which, his past actions would have to support).

So I will allow him to indicate if this is correct or not.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Yes, it is a tenet of my morality that if I obtain more value than I expend by an action I shall do it, assuming of course that I am aware of such.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my assumption and this allows me to begin.

First, it is important to understand that we can never know exactly how much value can be obtained from doing a debate on DDO until after it is completed. The same goes with how much value is expended. This is because we never know if an opponent is going to forfeit their rounds, or if they are going to argue the exact same arguments you've heard a thousand times.

So, just like with investing in the stock market or a bogo hooker, it is all about BELIEVING that you'll get more bang for your wang.

Looking at my opponent's past, we can see that he has easily demonstrated that he believes that debates on DDO are a worthwhile investment of his time and effort. He has participated in more DDO debates than the vast majority of DDO members [2]. This shows that he consistently views that he gets more out of the debates than he puts in. And being that he has been in 145 debates, one cannot really say that he tried it at first, and didn't like it, as that would be more convincing if he had only done a handful of debates, not 145. This shows that he viewed that they were worth the value, and upon completion of those debates, that view was reinforced.

Now, this brings us to the next point. Most of my opponent's debates were from a long time ago. In fact, he hardly ever does debates anymore [1], only 2 in the last 4 months. This would seem to indicate that he use to find the debates meaningful, but no longer does. This seems consistent with marginal value. The more debates he does, the less valuable they become. However, the reverse is also true. The longer he goes without debates, the more valuable they become, and he has been without debates for a while, so it stands to reason that their value is growing. We can also see that he has recently started doing debates again.

His most recent (apart from this one) is right here [3]. This is a debate that he started with a new member. We can see from the OP, that the new member put a lot of work into it (or copy and pasted, not sure, didn't check), and so my opponent knew that the debate was not likely to be forfeited. Also, the debate was religious based, and so my opponent should have known that there is an insanely small chance of actually changing him opponent's mind on the matter (religion is one subject that is practically cemented down in online forums). So if he didn't take the debate for an easy win, nor to actually change someone's mind, we must assume that he did it for his own enjoyment. Thus indicating that the value of debates to him is starting to reach the tipping point.

We can also see from starting this debate with me, that he must be holding some value in debates, for if he just wanted to say "no" there are far more energy and time conserving methods to do so. Ergo, he must get something out of this.

Looking at the opponents that he has chosen to debate in these recent debates shows that he is willing to debate new people, to see new views. He has never debated me before, nor has he debated DAN123. Therefore, we know that he places some value in debating new people that he hasn't debated before. In social's tourny, of which I requested he join, he has only debated against 2 of the signed up members, and has only done 3 debates against them. So most of the people there will be new to him.

So because we can assume that my opponent is logical and doesn't do things for random, non-value reasons, we can assume that we will likely get value out of the debates in this tournament, at least the odds of getting value are stacked great enough to match the odds of which he has acted on in the past.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar_Rahl

Con



Notably, unlike normal debates, a tournament commits me to multiple debates ahead of time, reducing schedule flexibility, and may cause me to take a debate that does not break the interest threshold such that I would take it at this time were it in a challenge queue or otherwise fairly organically available (such as this debate, which was in response to a profile comment). This feature of a tournament is a negative value as compared to investing the time in normal debates. In order for Pro's contention to be true that I am acting on similar expeced value in taking the tournament as I am in the debates I have taken in the past, he must demonstrate an offsetting concern, some unique positive feature of this tournament. Does it have prize money for example, as the only debate tournament I have entered in the past on DDO did?
I do not knowingly seek to have debates merely because the opponent is one I am unused to, and even if it is a value, I could challenge any person on the tournament list without the drawbacks of the tournament.
Ore_Ele

Pro

"Notably, unlike normal debates, a tournament commits me to multiple debates ahead of time, reducing schedule flexibility, and may cause me to take a debate that does not break the interest threshold such that I would take it at this time were it in a challenge queue or otherwise fairly organically available (such as this debate, which was in response to a profile comment). This feature of a tournament is a negative value as compared to investing the time in normal debates."

The debates of this tournament are actually entirely determined by the members, from the resolution, to the definitions, to who is PRO and CON, to when to start. So you still hold the power to mold debates to match with your interest and schedule. If the tournament was on a more strict time table and/or resolution table, as my tournament will be (meaning my pre-IDC run, not this one). We should also note that based on the high number of debates that my opponent has done, we can conclude that he has a rather flexible schedule (to be able to complete that many debates) and a rather wide interest of topics to debate (since not all his debates have been on the same topic). This shows that, while it can still be viewed as a negative feature, it is quite minimal, and so only needs minimal positives to over ride it.

"I do not knowingly seek to have debates merely because the opponent is one I am unused to, and even if it is a value, I could challenge any person on the tournament list without the drawbacks of the tournament."

Of course not, I was merely showing that you have no issue with debating with new people that you haven't debated before. New members have a much larger risk of not completing debates, not presenting in depth arguments, and various other negative attributes (this is not to say that new members are infearior, merely statistically more likely to bail or do poorly on their first debate). You have shown that you view that risk as acceptible given other factors (like the resolution and OP argument).

While it is true that my opponent could challenge any of the members of the tourny at any time, he should be aware that many members hold a tourny debate to a higher personal standard than a normal debate. As such, by challenging any of them while the tourny is going on would be the DDO equivilent of getting sloppy seconds (though many members are quite capable of not being too "sloppy" when giving seconds).

So it comes down to if entering something that will yeild higher quality is more of a positive than being partially tied down to a schedule is a negative.
Debate Round No. 3
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
The debates of this tournament are actually entirely determined by the members, from the resolution, to the definitions, to who is PRO and CON, to when to start."
They are determined by mutual consent of the members-- on the grounds that they must consent to something, and if they don't there is a rule determining the resolution for them, from their big issues.

This does not provide the same level of determination that not committing to a tournament does.

"We should also note that based on the high number of debates that my opponent has done, we can conclude that he has a rather flexible schedule (to be able to complete that many debates) and a rather wide interest of topics to debate (since not all his debates have been on the same topic). "
This does not mean I am always interested in all of those debates. One may want to discuss a given topic at one time and not another, perhaps one's questions are fresh in one's mind from something one has read. And simply because I have flexibility does not mean I ought expend it upon nothing.

"
While it is true that my opponent could challenge any of the members of the tourny at any time, he should be aware that many members hold a tourny debate to a higher personal standard than a normal debate. As such, by challenging any of them while the tourny is going on would be the DDO equivilent of getting sloppy seconds"
Why should I be aware of it? First demonstrate this statement to be true enough that "aware of it" means something, then show that them holding a debate to a high personal standard right now is more valuable than either keeping the above values I've noted I would give up in the course of the tourney or waiting till the tourney is done (as you've noted, I have 2 debates in the last 4 months. Clearly I'm in no hurry).
Ore_Ele

Pro

"This does not provide the same level of determination that not committing to a tournament does."

If you are using "determination" as "The process of establishing something exactly," then it is, as there are no limits to what the resolution can be if you do a debate yourself (except those placed by you and your opponent), and there are no limits to what the resolution can be if you do a debate in the tournament (except those placed by you and your opponent). Since they have the exact same limits, they have the same level of "determination."

If you are using "determination" as "Firmness of purpose," then you just comitted a semantics fallacy (I'd like to call it a polysemy fallacy, but can't find any backing for that).

"This does not mean I am always interested in all of those debates. One may want to discuss a given topic at one time and not another, perhaps one's questions are fresh in one's mind from something one has read. And simply because I have flexibility does not mean I ought expend it upon nothing."

Of course not, but it does show that there are a wide range of topics that you have found interesting, and so liking there are still a wide range of topics that you find interesting. If there was nothing that you found interesting, by your own tenet of morality (established in your post round 2), you wouldn't be here at all. So it is safe to assume that there are somethings of which you find interesting.

"Why should I be aware of it? First demonstrate this statement to be true enough that "aware of it" means something, then show that them holding a debate to a high personal standard right now is more valuable than either keeping the above values I've noted I would give up in the course of the tourney or waiting till the tourney is done (as you've noted, I have 2 debates in the last 4 months. Clearly I'm in no hurry)."

You should be aware of it because you have demonstrated to have the logical abilities to be able to figure it out. Obviously there are three options. People hold tournament debates a) below normal debates, b) equal to normal debates, c) above normal debates.

a) Anyone that holds tournament debates below those of normal debates would not choose to participate.
b) Anyone that holds them as equal would have no reason to participate unless they were the only debate available. As there are about a dozen debates a day on DDO (and many more in other places), they would default to not doing the tournament.
c) Anyone that holds the tournament debates above normal debates may do the tournament (pending other factors).

Since people are doing the tournament debates, we can assume they fall into group c.

As for the "I have 2 debates in the last 4 months. Clearly I'm in no hurry."

It is also noted that these 2 debates have been recent debates, which seem to indicate that you may be coming out of your debating fast. Obviously there is no guarentee, but it is merely a sign that you are starting to value debates more and so are actually doing them again.

Anyway, I will go ahead and let this debate end, it was most enjoyable to debate an odd issue like this. If anyone else is interested in the tournament, there is still 1 spot open.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I must say, I find proposition b of your "Three possibilities" very convincing. Unfortunately, it's not convincing in the direction it's supposed to be.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Though I might accept it anyway, as a challenge.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I have the feeling that you've already cemented your opinion on the matter. Thus, accepting this debate would be meaningless to my goals.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
If by win you mean convince me, yes. I do not respect democracy.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
If I win this will you participate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ragnar_RahlOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 pt to Ragnar for posting this debate, this style of challenge seemed to be common in the past and added something significant to the forum exchange. However OreEle dominated the exchange and Ragnar replied weakly OreEle and ignored several contentions. 3:1 on arguments.