The Instigator
maryjane10g
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

is tony montanna better than al capone

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 4 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 84755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

maryjane10g

Pro

Tony Montana partly based on al capone
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept. PRO has the full burden of proof, and must demonstrate that Tony Montanna is objectively better than Al Capone. If he fails to do this, you default to CON.
Debate Round No. 1
maryjane10g

Pro

maryjane10g forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Extend.

I need to note for certain particularly unclever members that what PRO has written is not an argument: saying that Tony Montana is "partly based on Al Capone" is not a viable argument--why? Because this is totally irrelevant to the resolution. At the very least, PRO has not told us how this is or could be relevant to the resolution.

Let's assume it's true--and you shouldn't even assume as much, because PRO hasn't evidenced it. So what? How does that make Tony Montana better than Al Capone? There is absolutely no logical connection here.

To win, PRO must prove that Tony Montana is objectively better than Al Capone. In that absence of that, you vote CON. If PRO fails to provide a framework for objective superiority, you default to CON, because the entirety of the burden of proof is on PRO. If it remains on the table at the end of this debate that either Al Capone is superior or that it's ambiguous--e.g., we either don't know who is better or we can't conclude that either is better, because superiority is subjective--you default to CON.

I'm reiterating these points, though I shouldn't have to, because there are some particularly unclever members casting strategic votes on debates, even though they're totally ignorant of basic debate mechanics and theory and are in wildly over their depth in attempting to do so.

There are several points then that I'm going to underscore:

(a) It is impossible to drop an argument when PRO hasn't made an argument. In this case, PRO hasn't made an argument. An argument has three essential parts: a claim, a link, and an impact. If it lacks any of those things, it is not an argument.

In his first round, PRO has made a claim--which is hardly a claim, because (a) there's no evidence for it and (b) it's not even written in a full sentence. There is no link, no evidence, and no impact. Thus, this is not an argument. Therefore, if I just wrote "extend" in this round, you wouldn't award PRO argument points for a so-called "dropped argument." If you did that, it's clear that you are using terms that you don't understand, and likely should have your voting privileges revoked until you learn how to cast a ballot--or, in many cases, how to read.

(b) If a point or argument is uncontested in a debate, you MUST buy it. Failure to do so is injecting the judge's bias into the debate, which is a direct violation of tabula rasa. You should weigh arguments against one another, and this might involve some degree of subjectivity, but you do not have the right to outright discard a point or unreasonably elevate a point simply due to your own personal feelings or biases.

To that end, if I were to say, "PRO has the full burden of proof to do X," you cannot arbitrarily and subjectively state that I have imposed an unfair, lengthened burden on PRO when my point was uncontested. Doing so is wildly uncalled for, stupid and a dereliction of your duty as a judge.

(c) Clearly there is one member in particular whom these remarks are directed at, and because I know he's a particularly slow individual, I'm taking the time to break it down for him. Therefore, I'm fairly certain he's going to show up in the blink of an eye to try to vote me down.

Obviously he can't vote argument points without looking like a total fool to anyone, even to the point where it doesn't pass the relatively lax standards that moderation sets for a "permissible vote." But he can try to hit me on conduct, and then write a long-winded, passive-aggressive conduct on unsportsmanlike conduct.

First, this is not unsportsmanlike conduct. This is educating an otherwise uninformed man who has nothing better in his life than to strategically cast objectively incorrect ballots. If you think this is unsporting conduct, you're likewise objectively wrong. Second, casting a vote merely for conduct, ignoring the fact that PRO will likely forfeit every round, had the total BOP, and that argument points are clear, is a strategic vote, and your vote will hence be removed.

So don't even try it.

I think I've said enough for now. Let's see how this develops.

Extend.
Debate Round No. 2
maryjane10g

Pro

maryjane10g forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Finally, after two long years on DDO, I can say that I've won 100 consecutive debates (on one account).

Some people said it was impossible; others said it was a pointless, fruitless effort. They're probably right, but at least for the moment, I have the last laugh.

For the last time ever, I will say this: "I extend my arguments. Vote CON."

Goodbye DDO. Hello, legendary status.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Dude I don't even remember what this debate was about, lollollol.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I think this example is best suited--Bluesteel's RFD in the debate between Envisage and Lannan on God's existence. Let me quote from it:

"Lannan's articulation of the ontological argument failed to define God. The normal articulation would define God as a necessarily existent being. Without outside knowledge, I would have been completely unable to understand Lannan's articulation of the ontological argument. Because Lannan failed to adequately explain the leap from logical possibility to necessary existence, this isn"t an argument I would vote on anyway, regardless of what Envisage said. Debaters have an obligation to explain their arguments in a way that a judge with no outside knowledge would understand. Debaters should presume that every judge is tabula rasa, i.e. has no outside knowledge. Thus, judges -- under their obligation to act as blank slates -- should only vote on arguments that are sufficiently warranted (explained) so that someone with no pre-existing knowledge on the topic could understand."

https://docs.google.com...

I think the above is fully justified and explains why explaining an argument clearly is NECESSITATED and judges should view the debate as if with no knowledge of the issue: which includes not weighing insufficiently explained arguments.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Even if they *do* understand it, judges must be tabula rasa until the argument is explained sufficient to someone who's really a blank slate to understand."

But that wasn't the point: understanding an argument is totally separable from being a blank slate. This is a *prerequisite*, if anything, because you suggested this person shouldn't vote on arguments, which is just absurd. A judge cannot willfully discard an argument because he hasn't done his homework and is voting on a debate wildly behind his reach.

This isn't confusing the two, either, because they're inextricably link, which is perhaps the only area where subjectivity comes into play in tabula rasa. If an argument from mumbo jumbo is presented, that argument is *insufficiently explained": sufficiency isn't solely about the quantity of information, but the extent to which it is presented in a cohesive, meaningful way such that it adequately sways the judges. In such a case, you don't *discard* the argument such that you for some reason put it on par with, say, a full forfeit--that's absurd--but weigh it less against other arguments.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
And you're confusing "insufficiently explained" with "difficult to understand." If the argument requires explanation and isn't explained by any person's standards, that isn't an argument a judge should vote on.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
>Judges have a responsibility to ensure they understand the arguments prior to casting their ballots.

Even if they *do* understand it, judges must be tabula rasa until the argument is explained sufficient to someone who's really a blank slate to understand. In a forfeit debate where a side makes an argument that lacks sufficient explanation at all and no other argument, tie the arguments point and vote on conduct *if* you're being "tabula rasa."

I agree that a judge has to buy "factual accuracy" of the statement in question -- but if the statement in question is total gibberish, like Dylan's debate with Roy where he used words like "protocomputational," even if Roy *did not* run the kritik, a judge shouldn't have voted on Dylan's argument.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
@Tej:

I'll take these points one by one.

There is no contradiction, for one. When I said tabula rasa, I was referring to burden analysis, though the same applies to debate arguments. That's one of the most common conventions in debate theory there is: if I say the sky is black, and it's uncontested, the sky is black for the sake of that debate. The judge is required to buy the *factual* accuracy of that statement, though that has nothing at all to do with the possibility of insufficiency.

I wrote the following, for instance:

"You should weigh arguments against one another, and this might involve some degree of subjectivity, but you do not have the right to outright discard a point or unreasonably elevate a point simply due to your own personal feelings or biases."

Tabula-rasa judging will always involve *some* subjectivity--the point is that this subjective should not under any circumstances boil down to the judge's own biases, but rather an examination, as objective as possible, of the available evidence. If an argument is insufficient or lacks sufficient evidence, the judge is required to buy that evidence--but, for instance, couldn't apply his bias to the effect of "Well, I agree with this, so even though it's insufficiently explained, I'm going to buy it over the alternative, which his opponent provided far more evidence for."

And I don't agree with that at all. If the opposing side made a case that it's an argument "from mumbo jumbo" that's a totally different story, and that should factor in when you're weighing competing claims, but I wouldn't discard an argument merely because it's difficult to understand. If that were such a case--and obviously this isn't exactly relevant in a forfeited debate, because you know for whom you're voting anyway--I probably shouldn't be judging if I found the arguments "impossible" to understand. Judges have a responsibility to ensure they understand the arguments prior to casting their ballots.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
*they must be a blank slate
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
But if it's a point that has some level of explanation, such that the judge can at least *understand* the argument, then I certainly agree.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
>If a point or argument is uncontested in a debate, you MUST buy it.

Your own standards contradict this. For a judge to be truly "tabula rasa," he must be a blank slate -- clearly showing a lack of any outside knowledge on a topic. Your standards require judging to be truly tabula rasa. And under truly tabula rasa judging, this *does not* hold. Tabula rasa judging requires that a judge discredit an argument that is insufficiently explained, because if a judge credits an argument that lacks any explanation and is merely rubbish, then they aren't being honest to the "blank slate" judging that requires them to ignore any insufficiently explained arguments. For instance, if there's an argument with jargon to such an extent that it's *impossible to understand,* you don't vote on arguments if it's a forfeited debate. Take, for example, a "God exists" debate where the Con side forfeits the whole debate. The other side offers an argument from CTMU, spamming weird, incoherent language and not explaining any of that jargon. A tabula rasa judge, in such a case, would merely vote arguments as a tie seeing as the weird argument isn't explained nor is it refuted, and just vote on conduct -- especially if the burden is on Pro.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
100-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nac
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
maryjane10gResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff by pro!
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
maryjane10gResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. I don't see any argument presented by Pro in this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
maryjane10gResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: (1) Conduct. Forfeit. (2) Arguments. Pro's burden was to prove that Tony Montanna is "better" than Al Capone. There's not much clarity on what being "better" even means. Pro doesn't expand on the definition, which is critical to their case. Con argues that Pro must prove that Tony Montanna is "objectively" better than Al Capone, but doesn't really justify it. Regardless, I agree that since there's no dispute regarding whether the debate is one with a burden of persuasion, Pro carries the greater burden -- a burden of proof. Pro doesn't have any arguments. Their only argument isn't explained and doesn't link to the resolution. Con clearly outlines why Pro doesn't fulfill their burden. Since lack of fulfilling the BoP easily shifts my decision, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
maryjane10gResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP to prove that Tony Montana is objectively better than Al Capone, which he failed to do so. Pro FF, leaving Cons case untouched.