Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Just debate people >->

BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:57:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is beginning to bug me a bit; how when either having a debate, or prior to a debate arguments are made to limit the scope of the round. If you can only refute certain arguments, then you have no business debating in the first place; or if you truly think that an argument that your opponent could make is really so absurd, then I say just take the easy win and take apart the bad argument.

But really, I come to this site for fun during the off season of serious debate. So when certain members take these rounds too seriously, it completely kills what makes these rounds fun; and they just become homework.

>->
Also on a lesser note; I am also annoyed by people complaining over RFD's.
Unless it's abusive, or a vote-bomb; just take their RFD and learn from it. Just because you disagree with their logic, doesn't make them wrong for having a different opinion.

</rant>
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

What good does that do though? They usually don't change their vote anyway; and you end up just wasting time typing up your complaint.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

What good does that do though? They usually don't change their vote anyway; and you end up just wasting time typing up your complaint.

+1
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

I disagree. In many debates (at least amongst the "regulars"), both sides put in a considerable amount of effort. Not only for our arguments, but also with the sources we link and the layout. It takes days for me to get ready for a debate since I compile sources beforehand and study which ones I plan on putting forth. I imagine other serious debaters on this site do the same.

Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

What good does that do though? They usually don't change their vote anyway; and you end up just wasting time typing up your complaint.

If people don't get called out on BS, then they'll continue perpetuating it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:27:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

I disagree. In many debates (at least amongst the "regulars"), both sides put in a considerable amount of effort. Not only for our arguments, but also with the sources we link and the layout. It takes days for me to get ready for a debate since I compile sources beforehand and study which ones I plan on putting forth. I imagine other serious debaters on this site do the same.

I assure you I am a serious debater, but win or lose the point of debating is because we inherently enjoy debating these issues. However my complaint is in and of the amount of meticulous framework prior to argumentation. It seems to me as though some members only want to take debate they can win; which seriously kills what makes these rounds fun.

Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

What good does that do though? They usually don't change their vote anyway; and you end up just wasting time typing up your complaint.

If people don't get called out on BS, then they'll continue perpetuating it.

This is the internet Ann, it really doesn't matter. All "calling them out on it" will do is create drama; rarely does an internet rebuke actually change another's opinions.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:32:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

I disagree. In many debates (at least amongst the "regulars"), both sides put in a considerable amount of effort. Not only for our arguments, but also with the sources we link and the layout. It takes days for me to get ready for a debate since I compile sources beforehand and study which ones I plan on putting forth. I imagine other serious debaters on this site do the same.

Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.


Yes, this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:39:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:32:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

I disagree. In many debates (at least amongst the "regulars"), both sides put in a considerable amount of effort. Not only for our arguments, but also with the sources we link and the layout. It takes days for me to get ready for a debate since I compile sources beforehand and study which ones I plan on putting forth. I imagine other serious debaters on this site do the same.

Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.


Yes, this.

B Merp
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:27:45 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

I disagree. In many debates (at least amongst the "regulars"), both sides put in a considerable amount of effort. Not only for our arguments, but also with the sources we link and the layout. It takes days for me to get ready for a debate since I compile sources beforehand and study which ones I plan on putting forth. I imagine other serious debaters on this site do the same.

I assure you I am a serious debater, but win or lose the point of debating is because we inherently enjoy debating these issues. However my complaint is in and of the amount of meticulous framework prior to argumentation. It seems to me as though some members only want to take debate they can win; which seriously kills what makes these rounds fun.

Of course they want to win! If you were debating something that you believe, would you want to lose? I don't think so. Becoming upset and irrational once losing is something I would tell others to avoid but I wouldn't tell them to not take debating seriously. In fact, those who take debate the most seriously have the most interesting and informative debates along with higher standards or expectations. We are all here because we enjoy debate -- if you want to have fun while debating, then don't debate users who are serious. But I don't see why you would do that... I've had the most fun talking/debating the serious members.

Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

What good does that do though? They usually don't change their vote anyway; and you end up just wasting time typing up your complaint.

If people don't get called out on BS, then they'll continue perpetuating it.

This is the internet Ann, it really doesn't matter. All "calling them out on it" will do is create drama; rarely does an internet rebuke actually change another's opinions.

You're talking to an existential nihilist; I know it doesn't matter. ;)

There's a 1,001 ways to say something -- I can tell them their RFD is bullsh!t without causing drama.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:54:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:40:52 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:27:45 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

I get that, but that's not what I meant; I mean that these debates shouldn't be taken so seriously in the first place. This is the internet, and this is just a website; None of this truly matters, it's just for fun.

I disagree. In many debates (at least amongst the "regulars"), both sides put in a considerable amount of effort. Not only for our arguments, but also with the sources we link and the layout. It takes days for me to get ready for a debate since I compile sources beforehand and study which ones I plan on putting forth. I imagine other serious debaters on this site do the same.

I assure you I am a serious debater, but win or lose the point of debating is because we inherently enjoy debating these issues. However my complaint is in and of the amount of meticulous framework prior to argumentation. It seems to me as though some members only want to take debate they can win; which seriously kills what makes these rounds fun.

Of course they want to win! If you were debating something that you believe, would you want to lose? I don't think so. Becoming upset and irrational once losing is something I would tell others to avoid but I wouldn't tell them to not take debating seriously. In fact, those who take debate the most seriously have the most interesting and informative debates along with higher standards or expectations. We are all here because we enjoy debate -- if you want to have fun while debating, then don't debate users who are serious. But I don't see why you would do that... I've had the most fun talking/debating the serious members.

I'm not saying don't take debating seriously, I'm saying not to take the framework too seriously. Of course some-one wants to win a debate that they're passionate about. I personally want to win debates even if I don't give a rip about the resolution; but you still don't counter that there is too much emphasis on framework, and limiting the scope of the resolution.
In fact the fact that you want the round to be serious is grounds to make the resolution broader. You get nothing out of semantically limiting the resolution.


Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

What good does that do though? They usually don't change their vote anyway; and you end up just wasting time typing up your complaint.

If people don't get called out on BS, then they'll continue perpetuating it.

This is the internet Ann, it really doesn't matter. All "calling them out on it" will do is create drama; rarely does an internet rebuke actually change another's opinions.

You're talking to an existential nihilist; I know it doesn't matter. ;)

Point proven :D


There's a 1,001 ways to say something -- I can tell them their RFD is bullsh!t without causing drama.

Still, they don't change their opinions do they?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 11:59:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:54:42 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:40:52 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:27:45 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:17:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:09:58 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
Of course they want to win! If you were debating something that you believe, would you want to lose? I don't think so. Becoming upset and irrational once losing is something I would tell others to avoid but I wouldn't tell them to not take debating seriously. In fact, those who take debate the most seriously have the most interesting and informative debates along with higher standards or expectations. We are all here because we enjoy debate -- if you want to have fun while debating, then don't debate users who are serious. But I don't see why you would do that... I've had the most fun talking/debating the serious members.

I'm not saying don't take debating seriously, I'm saying not to take the framework too seriously. Of course some-one wants to win a debate that they're passionate about. I personally want to win debates even if I don't give a rip about the resolution; but you still don't counter that there is too much emphasis on framework, and limiting the scope of the resolution.
In fact the fact that you want the round to be serious is grounds to make the resolution broader. You get nothing out of semantically limiting the resolution.

If its too broad, that allows for more confusion. It's hard to create a resolution where its limited enough that both remain on the same page throughout the debate but broad enough that multiple (and diverse) arguments can be put forth. However, it is possible. This is much easier when the Instigator is Pro and the resolution is decided beforehand between the opponents.

Since the resolution is the main focus of the debate, its obvious that the most time is going to be spent on creating one which is possible to defend and argue against with the same passion. Regardless of you being a "serious" debater or not, the resolution will be regarded with the most care. Or, at least it should be if you want a productive debate. Otherwise you're left with a crap debate which is much worse.


Sure, it is still meant for fun. But when you are debating something you truly believe (or hold contempt for), you become passionate. And once you are that passionate, its hard to take it as a "this is just for fun" debate. You are now defending something you hold deep conviction for.


There's a 1,001 ways to say something -- I can tell them their RFD is bullsh!t without causing drama.

Still, they don't change their opinions do they?

That's not my main reason. If the person continues to give crap RFD's, to the point where I'm not the only one speaking out, then we can have their voting rights taken away. Of course this will only happen if the RFDs are bad enough, but pushing for certain high standards is what keeps the chances of crap RFDs lower or at least more noticeable when posted.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 12:22:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:57:49 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
This is beginning to bug me a bit; how when either having a debate, or prior to a debate arguments are made to limit the scope of the round.

Are you talking about what Freeman typically does for example?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 12:28:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:59:30 PM, annhasle wrote:

Of course this will only happen if the RFDs are bad enough, but pushing for certain high standards is what keeps the chances of crap RFDs lower or at least more noticeable when posted.

What gives you the right to judge the vote of another person and why should a mod remove their vote unless it is an explicit TOS violation? And harassing someone for "bullsh1t" votes is itself a TOS violation.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 12:30:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 12:28:41 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/22/2011 11:59:30 PM, annhasle wrote:

Of course this will only happen if the RFDs are bad enough, but pushing for certain high standards is what keeps the chances of crap RFDs lower or at least more noticeable when posted.

What gives you the right to judge the vote of another person

Why do I need a 'right' to do so? I have the ability to do so and evidence to support my criticism, so I will.

and why should a mod remove their vote unless it is an explicit TOS violation?

That's up to the mod to decide.

And harassing someone for "bullsh1t" votes is itself a TOS violation.

Who said I will harass someone for an RFD?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 1:13:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:02:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
There's a difference between fun, lighthearted debates and spam debates. People tend to get mad at the latter.

And if someone gives me a bullsh!t RFD, I will call them out on it.

voiced my thoughts
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 3:25:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:59:30 PM, annhasle wrote:

If its too broad, that allows for more confusion. It's hard to create a resolution where its limited enough that both remain on the same page throughout the debate but broad enough that multiple (and diverse) arguments can be put forth.

This is exactly what I mean; there is no such thing as too broad of a resolution. So long as there is any ground, you should be able to debate it. Now of course you should make sure there's an actual resolution, and not just an open discussion; but at the point a resolution is determined, you should not limit the resolution whatsoever.
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 3:26:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 12:22:40 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/22/2011 9:57:49 PM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:
This is beginning to bug me a bit; how when either having a debate, or prior to a debate arguments are made to limit the scope of the round.

Are you talking about what Freeman typically does for example?

Well yes, but that wasn't the sole purpose of starting this thread. It's one of the more recent reasons, but pretty much exactly what Freeman does.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:55:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 12:30:40 AM, annhasle wrote:

Why do I need a 'right' to do so? I have the ability to do so and evidence to support my criticism, so I will.

So you can make a claim that a vote has to be objective and you have the standard for such objectivity?

and why should a mod remove their vote unless it is an explicit TOS violation?

That's up to the mod to decide.

I was asking you why they should do it.

And harassing someone for "bullsh1t" votes is itself a TOS violation.

Who said I will harass someone for an RFD?

You did, I quoted your words.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:57:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 3:26:26 AM, BangBang-Coconut wrote:

Well yes, but that wasn't the sole purpose of starting this thread. It's one of the more recent reasons, but pretty much exactly what Freeman does.

The reason he does it generally is that is just the way he debates, he runs very specific arguments that attack or support very specific resolutions. It can take longer to set up a debate with Freeman than to do the debate. I can understand how it would be frustrating if you did not care about such things but he enjoys that as much as you enjoy debating on looser resolutions. The best solution would be that you find different opponents rather than either of you stop debating as you enjoy.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:14:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This a debate site. The purpose is debating. So arguing over an RFD or asking for reasons in the comments is consistent with the debate forum.

It's true that people rarely change their votes based on arguing an RFD, so it's generally pointless even though there is nothing wrong with doing it. Sometimes it's a case of "X usually has his head screwed on straight. What on earth was he thinking?" There are also people here who take is personally and will vote against you until the end of time if you question them, providing weird rationalizations for their votes. There is nothing that can be done about that; it's human nature. Just don't retaliate with unfair voting.

It's reasonable to spend effort in setting up a debate. That can lead to a much better debate. The point is to settle uninteresting semantic arguments beforehand. I really don't like attempts to force me into a debate on some subject that doesn't interest me that much. That's what the blocking feature is for.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 1:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:55:01 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 12:30:40 AM, annhasle wrote:

Why do I need a 'right' to do so? I have the ability to do so and evidence to support my criticism, so I will.

So you can make a claim that a vote has to be objective and you have the standard for such objectivity?

When have I asserted that I have the standard for objectivity?

and why should a mod remove their vote unless it is an explicit TOS violation?

That's up to the mod to decide.

I was asking you why they should do it.

That depends on the RFD.

And harassing someone for "bullsh1t" votes is itself a TOS violation.

Who said I will harass someone for an RFD?

You did, I quoted your words.

I never said I would harass anyone. I said I would call them out -- which is not the same.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:44:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 3:11:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
"Superman is a fascistic tool?"

You do know he just 'quit' his American citizenship, right? :P
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:44:51 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:11:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
"Superman is a fascistic tool?"

You do know he just 'quit' his American citizenship, right? :P

Yeah, I noticed that while researching. I actually defined Superman as pre-2000 Superman.