Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Opinion poll

tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 4:26:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Am I being unclear or something in that debate? I don't want anyone to make an argument in the debate for me or anything it just seems like there's a lot of confusion on my opponent's side about what exactly it is that I'm trying to say.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 12:51:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 4:26:35 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Am I being unclear or something in that debate? I don't want anyone to make an argument in the debate for me or anything it just seems like there's a lot of confusion on my opponent's side about what exactly it is that I'm trying to say.

I'm assuming your argument is something along the lines of (your argument isn't that clear) 'doubt is a reasonable position therefore a benevolent god wouldn't necessarily punish one who doubts' - problem being you've only talked about the first half and haven't really tied it to the resolution itself. The rest is just getting sidetracked into irrelevancies.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 1:08:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 12:51:38 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/20/2011 4:26:35 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Am I being unclear or something in that debate? I don't want anyone to make an argument in the debate for me or anything it just seems like there's a lot of confusion on my opponent's side about what exactly it is that I'm trying to say.

I'm assuming your argument is something along the lines of (your argument isn't that clear) 'doubt is a reasonable position therefore a benevolent god wouldn't necessarily punish one who doubts' - problem being you've only talked about the first half and haven't really tied it to the resolution itself. The rest is just getting sidetracked into irrelevancies.

Ok I get what you're saying. This is my first debate, other than one on cyberbullying, that my opponent didn't forfeit. I figured that since my argument revolved around the damnation of non-believers that it would be implied that I was arguing for the resolution you put in quotes. I guess that's something to improve then.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 1:19:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 1:08:38 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 2/21/2011 12:51:38 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/20/2011 4:26:35 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Am I being unclear or something in that debate? I don't want anyone to make an argument in the debate for me or anything it just seems like there's a lot of confusion on my opponent's side about what exactly it is that I'm trying to say.

I'm assuming your argument is something along the lines of (your argument isn't that clear) 'doubt is a reasonable position therefore a benevolent god wouldn't necessarily punish one who doubts' - problem being you've only talked about the first half and haven't really tied it to the resolution itself. The rest is just getting sidetracked into irrelevancies.

Ok I get what you're saying. This is my first debate, other than one on cyberbullying, that my opponent didn't forfeit. I figured that since my argument revolved around the damnation of non-believers that it would be implied that I was arguing for the resolution you put in quotes. I guess that's something to improve then.

Even if your preference isn't to post a large opening round, laying out the skeleton of what your argument is going to be would help a lot. Problem is Con just has to roughly guess what your argument is based upon in regards to the resolution, and since you don't address the resolution itself in the argument all Con is left with is what he posted in the last round. Plenty people argue askew from a posted resolution, so best not to rely upon implication tying whatever you argue back to it. It makes for a poor argument anyway since all you are really doing is expanding on premises, not tying premises to a conclusion.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 1:33:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 1:19:35 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/21/2011 1:08:38 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 2/21/2011 12:51:38 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/20/2011 4:26:35 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Am I being unclear or something in that debate? I don't want anyone to make an argument in the debate for me or anything it just seems like there's a lot of confusion on my opponent's side about what exactly it is that I'm trying to say.

I'm assuming your argument is something along the lines of (your argument isn't that clear) 'doubt is a reasonable position therefore a benevolent god wouldn't necessarily punish one who doubts' - problem being you've only talked about the first half and haven't really tied it to the resolution itself. The rest is just getting sidetracked into irrelevancies.

Ok I get what you're saying. This is my first debate, other than one on cyberbullying, that my opponent didn't forfeit. I figured that since my argument revolved around the damnation of non-believers that it would be implied that I was arguing for the resolution you put in quotes. I guess that's something to improve then.

Even if your preference isn't to post a large opening round, laying out the skeleton of what your argument is going to be would help a lot. Problem is Con just has to roughly guess what your argument is based upon in regards to the resolution, and since you don't address the resolution itself in the argument all Con is left with is what he posted in the last round. Plenty people argue askew from a posted resolution, so best not to rely upon implication tying whatever you argue back to it. It makes for a poor argument anyway since all you are really doing is expanding on premises, not tying premises to a conclusion.

I went back and tried to clarify though it's pretty much useless as the debate is all but over.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N