Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

problem with debateing system

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:04:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
it has come to my attention that the one who starts a debate is at a disadvantage as the as the opponent has last word.
I am curious as to what my fellow debaters think about this.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:17:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since when does getting the last word give an advantage? members are not allowed to introduce new arguments in the last round, if either the instigator or contender does so, they will lose conduct. the final refutation by the contender is either sound or unsound and judged by the voters. It is the responsibility of the instigator to create enough rounds to leave his opponent without anything new or powerful to say by the end of the debate. Furthermore, I feel that one should not start a debate unless he is sure he will win.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:34:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:17:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
Since when does getting the last word give an advantage?
look for your self there is a stronger tendency for the instigator to lose as I've learned from personal experience and research on the habits of the top debaters.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:38:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:17:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
members are not allowed to introduce new arguments in the last round, if either the instigator or contender does so, they will lose conduct.
Just bec. their not allowed doesn't mean they don't. Conduct is only one point.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:41:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:17:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is the responsibility of the instigator to create enough rounds to leave his opponent without anything new or powerful to say by the end of the debate.
ruberish. the point is the contender has last word which clearly gives an advantage.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:43:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:17:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
Furthermore, I feel that one should not start a debate unless he is sure he will win.
what does that have to do with whether the one with the last word has an unfair advantage.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:48:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:25:14 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
The real advantage is having as much time as you like to research for round one.

the reality of the matter is that the one with the last word generally wins.
2ndly the contender does have 9 days to research if they like. as well as up to 3 days between rounds.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:02:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:04:45 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
it has come to my attention that the one who starts a debate is at a disadvantage as the as the opponent has last word.
I am curious as to what my fellow debaters think about this.

I agree with truthseeker and know it to be at least partly true from personal experience. The contender will refute all of his opponent's points and defend all of his original arguements. He has the last word on every point that was brought up. Another advantage is this: If no rules are specified in round 1, here is how a four round debate usually goes.

Round 1 - Acceptance and Definitions

Round 2 - Pro: Opening Argument, Con: Opening argument, Rebuttal 1

Round 3 - Pro: Rebuttal 1, Defense 1, Con: Defense 1, Rebuttal 2

Round 4 - Pro: Rebuttal 2, Defense 2, Con: Defense 2, Rebuttal 3

As you can see Con has 3 rebuttals instead of 2. Everything else is equal. Not only that but it is Con's argument that the voter's read last and sticks in their head. The Contender definitely has a huge advantge, not to mention that he does not even have the burden of proof.

However, it is not all bad for Pro since there is a silver lining. Pro chooses the resolution, chooses how it is worded, chooses the character limit, chooses how many rounds there should be, chooses what can be done in each round, chooses how long a person can take to respond, so it's not all bad for the instigator.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:17:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:04:45 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
it has come to my attention that the one who starts a debate is at a disadvantage as the as the opponent has last word.
I am curious as to what my fellow debaters think about this.

Its a bit more complex than that, but generally speaking I agree with you, if i was given the chance to either go first, or go second and get the last word in, ill take second and the last word.

There are some things you can do if you are the instigator of the debate and thus are going first to help close the advantage gap. For example how well do you know your subject ? if you know the best counter argument for it, why not launch a pre emptive strike against it in the first round.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 9:40:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500+ debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%.

The likely reasons are because...
1) Instigators are often new members that will not finish their debates (they can also accept debates and never finish them, but it is more likely they'll start one).
2) Instigators often start with their arguments in R1, so the potential Contenders will not accept unless they are confident that they'll win because their opponent has revieled their hand.
3) Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 9:59:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Usually the Instigator has the burden of proof, another disadvantage.

The instigator has the advantage of picking the topic, one he is familiar with. But presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning. If anyone takes the debate at all, it's likely a noob who ends up forfeiting. If no one accepts, the time spent preparing is wasted. I'm using the "first round is for acceptance only" scheme more frequently these days.
Thrasymachus
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 10:13:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As an aside, "no new arguments in the last round" doesn't mean the contender doesn't get the last word. It simply means Con R4 instead of Con R5 (for example) is their last word, as Pro is not allowed to respond to it under 'no new arguments in last round'.

It should be noted that some pro debaters (like WLC) insist on going first. Which is both a bit cheeky, and suggestive he sees considerable value in getting the first word.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 10:19:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:38:12 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:17:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
members are not allowed to introduce new arguments in the last round, if either the instigator or contender does so, they will lose conduct.
Just bec. their not allowed doesn't mean they don't. Conduct is only one point.

But all new arguments introduced in that last round are forfeited and so both sides are once again equal.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 10:35:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, it would be the voters who are unfair, and not the debating system. The system allows both debaters to have an equal amount of speech. SOMEONE has to speak last, always. If a voter is swayed simply by who he heard last, then HE is unfair and not the system itself.

Moreover, the statistical tendency of voters to side with the contender can be easily explained. When looking at the website as a whole, most new comers instigate debates rather than contend. They usually lose these debates due to inexperience. That thus creates the appearance that the contender has a higher advantage in winning when that is not so.

Furthermore, the final round is for refutation only. If the instigators closing arguments were so weak that the contender could easily dismantle them and leave that lasting victory impression on the readers, then that is the fault of the instigator for being so inept.

In conclusion, there is nothing unfair about the debate system and decision on who speaks last.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 10:36:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have 4 debates up on this topic 3 are taken one is still available. I hope to bring this problem to light, so that the brilliant minds of ddo can come up with a solution to this problem and bring back some accuracy and integrity to debating. If anyone would like to challenge me on this topic feel free that way I'll have last word advantage.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 10:42:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 9:40:28 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500+ debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%.

The likely reasons are because...
1) Instigators are often new members that will not finish their debates (they can also accept debates and never finish them, but it is more likely they'll start one).
2) Instigators often start with their arguments in R1, so the potential Contenders will not accept unless they are confident that they'll win because their opponent has reveled their hand.
3) Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win.

wow. how the heck do you do that. it's not the 1st time you pulled out these ddo trivia states. and thanks I'll be shore to use this in my future debates I'll be shore to give you credit.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 11:16:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 10:36:05 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
I have 4 debates up on this topic 3 are taken one is still available. I hope to bring this problem to light, so that the brilliant minds of ddo can come up with a solution to this problem and bring back some accuracy and integrity to debating. If anyone would like to challenge me on this topic feel free that way I'll have last word advantage.

I sent you a challenge.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 11:21:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 11:16:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2011 10:36:05 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
I have 4 debates up on this topic 3 are taken one is still available. I hope to bring this problem to light, so that the brilliant minds of ddo can come up with a solution to this problem and bring back some accuracy and integrity to debating. If anyone would like to challenge me on this topic feel free that way I'll have last word advantage.

I sent you a challenge.

I've accepted. good luck to both of us may the right man win.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 11:21:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 10:42:10 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 8/10/2011 9:40:28 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500+ debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%.

The likely reasons are because...
1) Instigators are often new members that will not finish their debates (they can also accept debates and never finish them, but it is more likely they'll start one).
2) Instigators often start with their arguments in R1, so the potential Contenders will not accept unless they are confident that they'll win because their opponent has reveled their hand.
3) Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win.

wow. how the heck do you do that. it's not the 1st time you pulled out these ddo trivia states. and thanks I'll be shore to use this in my future debates I'll be shore to give you credit.

I have a spread sheet that Juggle sent me with every debate ever on DDO with the points and winners (they sent it so we could try to code ELO). I can just filter based on who won.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CD-Host
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:29:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Its interesting I was thinking about asymmetric debate systems this morning myself. Yes I would agree that last word means a lot.

For example when I used to debate it was
AC1 NC1 AC2 NC2 NR1 AR1 NR2 AR2. What I was thinking of for DDO was 4 round structure

Rules & topic(con) AC1 NR1 AC2 NC1 AR1 NC2 AR2
with an asymmetric win criteria. Negative wins on either a strictly better counter case or a successful rebuttal. (i.e. affirmative plan is bad or negative has a better plan).
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 5:46:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well the neg is disadvantaged in other ways which cancels out having the last word.

Here's what usually happens:

Pro writes a 7000-8000 character case in round 1.

Con is usually obligated to write a case of his own and refute Pro's 8000 character case in the same round. So he has three options. He either A. Writes a long case but sacrifices refuting space, B. Writes a long rebuttal and has to sacrifice characters from the case, or 3. Balance the two, in which case he's refuting Pro's 8000 character case with 4000.

The neg gets the last word, but the advantage is even in the end.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 5:53:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What if the debate follows a formula really closely by keeping each round for specific purposes? Both get equal opportunity. The only risk is that it might possibly feel disjointed for the voters?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 5:59:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or just having (if R1 is for acceptance and not arguing).

IR2 (instigator R2) be X characters (could be 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 or whatever they set it to.
CR2 (contender R2) be 2*X characters.
IR3 be 2*X characters.
CR3 be 2*X characters.
IR4 be 2*X characters.
CR4 be X characters.

That way, the contender has the room to address the Instigators arguements and make their own, and both sides get a grand total of 5*X character space to write in.

This would obviously be adjusted to fit the number of rounds (be they 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 5 rounds, etc). There could also be a field that allows R1 to be acceptance (so this character count method applies only to rounds 2 and on) that is only 1,000 or 2,000 characters max (plenty for rules, definition, etc).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:32:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 5:59:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Or just having (if R1 is for acceptance and not arguing).

IR2 (instigator R2) be X characters (could be 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 or whatever they set it to.
CR2 (contender R2) be 2*X characters.
IR3 be 2*X characters.
CR3 be 2*X characters.
IR4 be 2*X characters.
CR4 be X characters.

That way, the contender has the room to address the Instigators arguements and make their own, and both sides get a grand total of 5*X character space to write in.

This would obviously be adjusted to fit the number of rounds (be they 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 5 rounds, etc). There could also be a field that allows R1 to be acceptance (so this character count method applies only to rounds 2 and on) that is only 1,000 or 2,000 characters max (plenty for rules, definition, etc).

But then you have 16000-32000 character rounds by the end of it, if not more.

I honestly don't think it takes more space to refute a claim than to make a claim. Usually, it takes less space. Thats why people are able to respond to an 8000 character case while reserving 4000 characters for the Con case.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:46:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 6:32:36 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 8/10/2011 5:59:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Or just having (if R1 is for acceptance and not arguing).

IR2 (instigator R2) be X characters (could be 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 or whatever they set it to.
CR2 (contender R2) be 2*X characters.
IR3 be 2*X characters.
CR3 be 2*X characters.
IR4 be 2*X characters.
CR4 be X characters.

That way, the contender has the room to address the Instigators arguements and make their own, and both sides get a grand total of 5*X character space to write in.

This would obviously be adjusted to fit the number of rounds (be they 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 5 rounds, etc). There could also be a field that allows R1 to be acceptance (so this character count method applies only to rounds 2 and on) that is only 1,000 or 2,000 characters max (plenty for rules, definition, etc).

But then you have 16000-32000 character rounds by the end of it, if not more.

I honestly don't think it takes more space to refute a claim than to make a claim. Usually, it takes less space. Thats why people are able to respond to an 8000 character case while reserving 4000 characters for the Con case.

no, the characters don't double every round. Basically, if I use 4,000 chacters to make my argument, you then have 4,000 to refute AND 4,000 to make yours. I then have 4,000 to refute yours and 4,000 to defend mine. You then have 4,000 to defend yours, and 4,000 to refute my defense (and repeat until the end).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:06:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
While we're discussing this, I would like to suggest a cross-examination feature. It could be turned off or on in the making of the debate and be just another tab. It could be structured like Instant Messaging or the comments, but be restricted to the debaters. CX is a vital part of many debating styles, and when I've done it, I've had to cram it into the comments section, to be buried under spectator feedback.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
CD-Host
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:20:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 7:06:12 PM, wjmelements wrote:
While we're discussing this, I would like to suggest a cross-examination feature. It could be turned off or on in the making of the debate and be just another tab. It could be structured like Instant Messaging or the comments, but be restricted to the debaters. CX is a vital part of many debating styles, and when I've done it, I've had to cram it into the comments section, to be buried under spectator feedback.

That would be a software change. I've done a style of internet debate with:

1)Into
2) Simultaneous constructive 1 (goes out when both sides have submitted)
3) Simultaneous rebuttal / clarification
4) Alternating Cross X (each person answers one and asks one up to 5 or 10)
5) simultaneous final statements
6) concluding remarks (non debate oriented) -- probably couldn't be used here.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:31:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is most definitely an advantage for the Contender getting the last word. People talk about how if the Contender brings up a new argument, the voters will dismiss it, but in my experience, they don't. I've actually an argument that stood since Round 2 turned on Round 4 to favor my opponent, which should be a blatant conduct violation, but I couldn't do anything about it because saying anything was dismissed as "debating in the Comments section."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:35:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 7:31:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
There is most definitely an advantage for the Contender getting the last word. People talk about how if the Contender brings up a new argument, the voters will dismiss it, but in my experience, they don't. I've actually an argument that stood since Round 2 turned on Round 4 to favor my opponent, which should be a blatant conduct violation, but I couldn't do anything about it because saying anything was dismissed as "debating in the Comments section."

Okay so tell me,...who is unfair? The voters or the system?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault