Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Just an observation but...

Hello-Orange
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 8:47:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it just me, or does it seem like the actual debates on this site are obsolete? Many, if not most of the members on this site who are readily interested in the community aspect of the site just post in the forums. And as for those who both debate, and post in the forums, the posting in the forum is much more common for them.

Now as for those members who do nothing but debate, is seems like have no niche whatsoever in this community. And for a site like this, if there is not community aspect involved the debates themselves don't accomplish much.
so... Thoughts?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Hello-Orange
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 8:57:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

So it would seem. It's too bad though, I'm terrible at using the forum as I always forget which threads I've posted in.
Honestly I think I'm completely done using this site for serious debates. For now on I'm only going to do silly debates for fun.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 1:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

The bad part there is that its easier to lose your placidity in the forums when someone says something stupid. The forum also has the possibility of abandonment of discussion without consequence. We really should up the ante with the debates. The only thing is, no one wants to instigate debates because being an instigator sucks. They usually lose.
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 1:52:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 1:48:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

The bad part there is that its easier to lose your placidity in the forums when someone says something stupid. The forum also has the possibility of abandonment of discussion without consequence. We really should up the ante with the debates. The only thing is, no one wants to instigate debates because being an instigator sucks. They usually lose.

USUALLY, being the key word, Ike *nudge nudge*. Lol, I'm just kidding. I'm not that arrogant.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:06:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

There are some people like larztheloser who give a detailed RFD every single time they vote. More people should do that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 5:16:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

Add one more to that list.

Plus the character limits. Many of the serious issues require in-depth explanation to make your points. You really can't do justice to discussion on a serious topic in 8000 characters, which is about 3-5 minutes of speaking time. This is especially difficult when your opponent makes numerous claims and you have to use most of the space to refute them, or be judged to have conceded that point. You can win a debate simply by raising so many issues that your opponent can't spend enough space on each issue to effectively refute it. To me, between these two problems, it has become just not worth putting hours into a debate.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 5:55:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

This was my position before I left DDO. Even people were giving a short explanation it didn't matter. I knew most of there positions on the subjects from the forums. The votes were biased, as they always will be. It's like I said before, if I take the position of pro ancap.. I will win every time. The percentage of anarchists, atheists, and Christians on this site is by far the majority. Every other class seems to fall into the minority by comparison. That has been my observation at least.

You might have a good match of biased votes if the position is atheist versus Christian, but to go against any of these 3 majorities from a minority position seems to be an auto-loss.

But hey, I could be wrong.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:50:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
When I first came here I avoided the forums intent on only debating. Then I realized being at least somewhat active in the forums gets you some recognition. I do agree though, there is so much in the forums that could easily work as a debate and that is the primary function of this site. The forums are too unorganized anyway for a serious debate.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:08:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 12:50:34 AM, BennyW wrote:
When I first came here I avoided the forums intent on only debating. Then I realized being at least somewhat active in the forums gets you some recognition. I do agree though, there is so much in the forums that could easily work as a debate and that is the primary function of this site. The forums are too unorganized anyway for a serious debate.

I did the exact same thing when I first came to this site. I agree that the forums provide recognition. They also provide two other things:
1) Instant Gratification
2) Multiple inputs from different people rather than a one-on-one debate
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:47:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most people on the forums will agree that they use the forums more often than the debate feature.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:48:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:08:15 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/21/2011 12:50:34 AM, BennyW wrote:
When I first came here I avoided the forums intent on only debating. Then I realized being at least somewhat active in the forums gets you some recognition. I do agree though, there is so much in the forums that could easily work as a debate and that is the primary function of this site. The forums are too unorganized anyway for a serious debate.

I did the exact same thing when I first came to this site. I agree that the forums provide recognition. They also provide two other things:
1) Instant Gratification
2) Multiple inputs from different people rather than a one-on-one debate

Same for me.
I think when threads get long, the posts get huge, and replies multiply, people should just start a debate instead of drawing it out. Most often, the top posters do barely any debates.
Hello-Orange
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:21:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:08:15 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/21/2011 12:50:34 AM, BennyW wrote:
When I first came here I avoided the forums intent on only debating. Then I realized being at least somewhat active in the forums gets you some recognition. I do agree though, there is so much in the forums that could easily work as a debate and that is the primary function of this site. The forums are too unorganized anyway for a serious debate.

I did the exact same thing when I first came to this site. I agree that the forums provide recognition. They also provide two other things:
1) Instant Gratification
2) Multiple inputs from different people rather than a one-on-one debate

But then the drawback of that is that you lose that one on one aspect. and sometimes that's the best part :\
It becomes less of a debate, and more a Socratic seminar.
Hello-Orange
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:21:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 12:50:34 AM, BennyW wrote:
When I first came here I avoided the forums intent on only debating. Then I realized being at least somewhat active in the forums gets you some recognition. I do agree though, there is so much in the forums that could easily work as a debate and that is the primary function of this site. The forums are too unorganized anyway for a serious debate.

I agree in every way >->
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:51:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 5:16:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

Add one more to that list.

Plus the character limits. Many of the serious issues require in-depth explanation to make your points. You really can't do justice to discussion on a serious topic in 8000 characters, which is about 3-5 minutes of speaking time. This is especially difficult when your opponent makes numerous claims and you have to use most of the space to refute them, or be judged to have conceded that point. You can win a debate simply by raising so many issues that your opponent can't spend enough space on each issue to effectively refute it. To me, between these two problems, it has become just not worth putting hours into a debate.

I honestly think its takes less space to refute than to claim. The claimer has to spend a lot of characters justifying it with warrants or evidence, as well as stating the claim itself, whereas the refuter only has to summarize the claim and explain why it is wrong. That part honestly doesn't take a lot of space. For instance,

Claim:

"The death penalty leads to the execution of innocent civilians. As long as the executed inmate cannot come back to life, there will always be a risk of an innocent dying under a DP system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (insert link with 40 more characters on it), 170 innocents have been exonerated after conviction. This proves that innocents are convicted and could possibly be sent to death. Society should not embrace a system with this kind of flaw."

Rebuttal

"My opponent says that the DP leads to the conviction of innocents and cites 170 exonerations. But remember that they were exonerated, not executed. So the DP has not actually killed any innocents. This shows that our justice system does a good job of making sure none of them are actually set to death. Until Pro lists recent innocents who have died, this point is moot."

When you factor in the character space from the DPIC source, refuting that actually took about 150 characters less than claiming it. I think this can apply to rebuttals in general as well.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 3:07:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:51:23 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I honestly think its takes less space to refute than to claim. The claimer has to spend a lot of characters justifying it with warrants or evidence, as well as stating the claim itself, whereas the refuter only has to summarize the claim and explain why it is wrong. That part honestly doesn't take a lot of space. For instance,

Claim:

"The death penalty leads to the execution of innocent civilians. As long as the executed inmate cannot come back to life, there will always be a risk of an innocent dying under a DP system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (insert link with 40 more characters on it), 170 innocents have been exonerated after conviction. This proves that innocents are convicted and could possibly be sent to death. Society should not embrace a system with this kind of flaw."

Rebuttal

"My opponent says that the DP leads to the conviction of innocents and cites 170 exonerations. But remember that they were exonerated, not executed. So the DP has not actually killed any innocents. This shows that our justice system does a good job of making sure none of them are actually set to death. Until Pro lists recent innocents who have died, this point is moot."


When you factor in the character space from the DPIC source, refuting that actually took about 150 characters less than claiming it. I think this can apply to rebuttals in general as well.

I think if there was no limit on characters, the debate would get longer as the rounds progress even if no new points were allowed. Each time, a debater touches on the same point, not only do they summarize what was previously said but they also elaborate and sometimes restate their contention. In my opinion, it is easy to stick to the character limit in the initial rounds, but in the later rounds you soon find out that you have exceeded the character limit and need to cut back.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 11:45:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I prefer discussion on the forum.

Deep down, everyone knows I'm always right(except for when I'm wrong). I don't need a committee of retarded voters to declare this.

Plus, in my opinion, you get way better discussion on the forum. You are free to ask more questions, and I think you end up learning more.

Course, the real reason is that I'm just too lazy to write up a debate. If someone challenged me to something, I'd debate.

I don't like writing up debates, because if I'm not very careful with my language, it could easily end up turning into a semantical war. On the other hand, I like it when other people write the debate, because then I know what direction they are coming from. Usually it is always some kind of misunderstanding based on semantics. Ye ol' Cliffstamp tried to sucker me into a debate about whether or not photography was an art form by using the definition that described the mechanical process of capturing a picture, not the actual creative aspect of it. He also used a very specific definition of art that would have made it impossible for me to defend my position on photography being an artform.

I think he was just making fun of me though, because I got into a debate with a guy on the same subject, and scared him away by posting the definitions of the words.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 12:12:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Forum discussions usually degenerate into ad hominem attacks and argument.
"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
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 12:16:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:07:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:51:23 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I honestly think its takes less space to refute than to claim. The claimer has to spend a lot of characters justifying it with warrants or evidence, as well as stating the claim itself, whereas the refuter only has to summarize the claim and explain why it is wrong. That part honestly doesn't take a lot of space. For instance,

Claim:

"The death penalty leads to the execution of innocent civilians. As long as the executed inmate cannot come back to life, there will always be a risk of an innocent dying under a DP system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (insert link with 40 more characters on it), 170 innocents have been exonerated after conviction. This proves that innocents are convicted and could possibly be sent to death. Society should not embrace a system with this kind of flaw."

Rebuttal

"My opponent says that the DP leads to the conviction of innocents and cites 170 exonerations. But remember that they were exonerated, not executed. So the DP has not actually killed any innocents. This shows that our justice system does a good job of making sure none of them are actually set to death. Until Pro lists recent innocents who have died, this point is moot."


When you factor in the character space from the DPIC source, refuting that actually took about 150 characters less than claiming it. I think this can apply to rebuttals in general as well.

I think if there was no limit on characters, the debate would get longer as the rounds progress even if no new points were allowed. Each time, a debater touches on the same point, not only do they summarize what was previously said but they also elaborate and sometimes restate their contention. In my opinion, it is easy to stick to the character limit in the initial rounds, but in the later rounds you soon find out that you have exceeded the character limit and need to cut back.

True, but it is possible to refute in the same amount of space as it took your opponent to make the claim, as I showed. Personally, I like the 8000 limit because you have to be concise and get straight to the point. If there were 10,000 or 12,000 limits, not only might there be less concise rebuttals, but there would probably be even less voting because there's a lot more to read.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 12:21:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 12:16:54 AM, BlackVoid wrote:



True, but it is possible to refute in the same amount of space as it took your opponent to make the claim, as I showed. Personally, I like the 8000 limit because you have to be concise and get straight to the point. If there were 10,000 or 12,000 limits, not only might there be less concise rebuttals, but there would probably be even less voting because there's a lot more to read.

I agree with you that less is more. I am all for 4000, 5000 or 6000 character debates and I usually set it as such when I am the instigator. However, I disagree that rebuttals can be shorter than the original points because you have to remind the voters of what you are rebutting by summarizing or quoting your opponent and then do your actual rebuttal.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 12:33:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 12:21:46 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/22/2011 12:16:54 AM, BlackVoid wrote:

I agree with you that less is more. I am all for 4000, 5000 or 6000 character debates and I usually set it as such when I am the instigator. However, I disagree that rebuttals can be shorter than the original points because you have to remind the voters of what you are rebutting by summarizing or quoting your opponent and then do your actual rebuttal.

But you don't have to quote their whole argument. Like in the example I gave, you can summarize their paragraph-long argument in one sentence.

And the rebuttal doesn't have to be very long. Pro has to make the claim, give warrants, impact, and sometimes evidence (which is usually a 40+ character source). Con only has to attack the warrant or impact for it to count as a solid rebuttal.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 12:45:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 12:12:11 AM, 000ike wrote:
Forum discussions usually degenerate into ad hominem attacks and argument.

Only with certain members, and their behavior only calls for them to be taken even less seriously.

If they are bad enough, maybe even to the point of completely ignoring them, and just not responding.

They serve a function, but the people who don't see their function would prefer to lob a grenade at them. Those people are fascists in my eyes.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Hello-Orange
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 6:47:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:51:23 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 8/20/2011 5:16:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/20/2011 8:52:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
People have grown tired of putting in considerable time for a serious debate only to be votebombed. It's easier to have discussions in the forum.

Add one more to that list.

Plus the character limits. Many of the serious issues require in-depth explanation to make your points. You really can't do justice to discussion on a serious topic in 8000 characters, which is about 3-5 minutes of speaking time. This is especially difficult when your opponent makes numerous claims and you have to use most of the space to refute them, or be judged to have conceded that point. You can win a debate simply by raising so many issues that your opponent can't spend enough space on each issue to effectively refute it. To me, between these two problems, it has become just not worth putting hours into a debate.

I honestly think its takes less space to refute than to claim. The claimer has to spend a lot of characters justifying it with warrants or evidence, as well as stating the claim itself, whereas the refuter only has to summarize the claim and explain why it is wrong. That part honestly doesn't take a lot of space. For instance,

Claim:

"The death penalty leads to the execution of innocent civilians. As long as the executed inmate cannot come back to life, there will always be a risk of an innocent dying under a DP system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (insert link with 40 more characters on it), 170 innocents have been exonerated after conviction. This proves that innocents are convicted and could possibly be sent to death. Society should not embrace a system with this kind of flaw."

Rebuttal

"My opponent says that the DP leads to the conviction of innocents and cites 170 exonerations. But remember that they were exonerated, not executed. So the DP has not actually killed any innocents. This shows that our justice system does a good job of making sure none of them are actually set to death. Until Pro lists recent innocents who have died, this point is moot."


When you factor in the character space from the DPIC source, refuting that actually took about 150 characters less than claiming it. I think this can apply to rebuttals in general as well.

Would it be fair to guess that the example you gave me is based off of helping some-one or multiple some-ones with the recent UIL LD topic? And if so, could you by chance send me a link to the negative evidence you're quoting?
Hello-Orange
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 6:49:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:07:36 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:51:23 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I honestly think its takes less space to refute than to claim. The claimer has to spend a lot of characters justifying it with warrants or evidence, as well as stating the claim itself, whereas the refuter only has to summarize the claim and explain why it is wrong. That part honestly doesn't take a lot of space. For instance,

Claim:

"The death penalty leads to the execution of innocent civilians. As long as the executed inmate cannot come back to life, there will always be a risk of an innocent dying under a DP system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (insert link with 40 more characters on it), 170 innocents have been exonerated after conviction. This proves that innocents are convicted and could possibly be sent to death. Society should not embrace a system with this kind of flaw."

Rebuttal

"My opponent says that the DP leads to the conviction of innocents and cites 170 exonerations. But remember that they were exonerated, not executed. So the DP has not actually killed any innocents. This shows that our justice system does a good job of making sure none of them are actually set to death. Until Pro lists recent innocents who have died, this point is moot."


When you factor in the character space from the DPIC source, refuting that actually took about 150 characters less than claiming it. I think this can apply to rebuttals in general as well.

I think if there was no limit on characters, the debate would get longer as the rounds progress even if no new points were allowed. Each time, a debater touches on the same point, not only do they summarize what was previously said but they also elaborate and sometimes restate their contention. In my opinion, it is easy to stick to the character limit in the initial rounds, but in the later rounds you soon find out that you have exceeded the character limit and need to cut back.

I agree with what you've said, but if we're honest with each other, no one wants to read the rounds when they get too long.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:48:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 6:47:50 PM, Hello-Orange wrote:

Would it be fair to guess that the example you gave me is based off of helping some-one or multiple some-ones with the recent UIL LD topic? And if so, could you by chance send me a link to the negative evidence you're quoting?

Not really, I just needed to think of a common argument to use as an example. I don't take credit for the rebuttal, I just reworded an argument that I've see thett3 run a few times.

I think the link is

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I'm not sure where I got 170 from, but 138 isn't far off.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:00:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know about rebuttals being shorter than the openings. I can give a few examples of debates I was in where the rebuttals were much longer than the openings. Okay, I was partly just trying to see if my signature works.