Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Improvements to ddo debating system.

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 8:56:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There seems to be a growing dissatisfaction with the debate section of the site. This thread is to list problems and more importantly solutions to make the debate section of this site better.

Any idea's:
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
8/21/2011 9:42:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I doubt that any suggestions here would be implemented since the Mods haven't really shown a presence or interaction with members in the forums. None the less...

Problem: Contender advantage: Last Word

Solution: I propose that we make the last round for summaries ONLY, and they can end with a "vote pro" or "vote con". I suggest that instead of we put both debaters last round summaries side by side and not one on top of the other. This will counter the psychological air of victory for the last word speaker. There will be no refutations in the final round, and there will be no argumentation. Attempt at either the former or the latter would result in loss of conduct.
"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
8/21/2011 10:37:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 9:42:35 AM, 000ike wrote:
I doubt that any suggestions here would be implemented since the Mods haven't really shown a presence or interaction with members in the forums. None the less...

Problem: Contender advantage: Last Word

Solution: I propose that we make the last round for summaries ONLY, and they can end with a "vote pro" or "vote con". I suggest that instead of we put both debaters last round summaries side by side and not one on top of the other. This will counter the psychological air of victory for the last word speaker. There will be no refutations in the final round, and there will be no argumentation. Attempt at either the former or the latter would result in loss of conduct.

Last Word is a frivelous problem--there'll ALWAYS be a last word. Besides, MANY instigators have won debates (I cite Contradiction winning his debate with me, and I winning my debate with you). It's all about arguing more effectively--just because someone spoke last doesn't make them a winner.

As for the solution, I don't really agree, and here's why:

1) It still doesn't solve the last word issue (which I still think isn't an issue).

2) I'm not sure whether you'd have this be mandatory (I'll be assuming this), but honestly, the instigator should decide how the structure of the debate works (another advantage for the instigator), not a mandated rule across the board.
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
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:40:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 8:56:23 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
There seems to be a growing dissatisfaction with the debate section of the site. This thread is to list problems and more importantly solutions to make the debate section of this site better.

Any idea's:

I say the instigator should be able to choose the topic, have as much time as (s)he wants to make sure (s)he has a strong argument before posting, and set the rules of the debate (like no new arguments in the last round). Oh, wait... were already doing that.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:49:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For people who struggle with character counts...

Pro round 1: 6000
Con round 1: 7000

Pro round 2: 8000
Con round 2: 8000
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:16:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another annoying thread about the 'flaws' and required improvements to the ddo debating system.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:20:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is something I have wanted to see for a long time.
I want DDO to have an official tournament debate style/format.

Here is an example of how i think it should go

1.Tim creates a new tournament and puts in restrictions(Such as Must have been here for a months, must not be in top percentile etc)
2.Tim creates a tournament bracket with the new system. He puts in how many people.
3.The people that meet the requirements sign up.

There should also be a tournament tab under debates.
I know this idea is kinda crappy but I would love to see this.
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:32:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I disagree that the contender has a huge advantage, In fact, the only true advantage I see is the ability to refute your opponnts case in the first round (which is why I always specify the first round to be consstructive only). It's true that the last word is an advantage, but not much. The four debates I've lost as instigater I would've lost as contender...my Opponents simply debated better than me.

Suggestion:
In real life debate (except for LD) you have a partner. I think it would be really cool if they implemented a partner system in debates, two v. two where the first two people on each side write a constructive, than the second two write a rebuttal ect. I know it would be hard to get a round going and there would probably be alot of forfeits, but it still seems like a cool idea to me.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:16:41 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Another annoying thread about the 'flaws' and required improvements to the ddo debating system.

Another annoying post complaining about the actions of others. If you make a thread asking for votes, people complain. If you make a thread about helping to stop trolls, people complain. If you make a thread about possible improvements for the website, people complain. How about we start actually coming up with ideas instead of grumbling over everything?

This isn't all specifically directed at you man-is-good, but the many who love to complain about everything they don't like.
"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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:43:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:36:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:16:41 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Another annoying thread about the 'flaws' and required improvements to the ddo debating system.

Another annoying post complaining about the actions of others.
And yet you say that this post isn't directed to me, when you've just responded to my post???

If you make a thread asking for votes, people complain. If you make a thread about helping to stop trolls, people complain. If you make a thread about possible improvements for the website, people complain.
Maybe because since this is a debate site already, people would already disagree in perception on certain issues....I personally see no real improvement to the debating system, which is fine by itself, and find this thread annoying since its creator has been posting debates all over about the necessitated 'improvements to the ddo debating system'.
How about we start actually coming up with ideas instead of grumbling over everything?
We have, if you did not notice the past comments about potential improvements...So if one member 'grumbles' over everything (?), then that means there needs to be an even greater urge to come up with ideas?

How about we first discuss if there are actual problems in the ddo debating system in the first place without jumping to assertions that improvements are mandated or needed?

This isn't all specifically directed at you man-is-good, but the many who love to complain about everything they don't like.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:44:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:32:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
I disagree that the contender has a huge advantage, In fact, the only true advantage I see is the ability to refute your opponnts case in the first round (which is why I always specify the first round to be consstructive only). It's true that the last word is an advantage, but not much. The four debates I've lost as instigater I would've lost as contender...my Opponents simply debated better than me.

Suggestion:
In real life debate (except for LD) you have a partner. I think it would be really cool if they implemented a partner system in debates, two v. two where the first two people on each side write a constructive, than the second two write a rebuttal ect. I know it would be hard to get a round going and there would probably be alot of forfeits, but it still seems like a cool idea to me.

Not really, because they have to make their own case in addition to refuting the Pro's. So they get half the space to make a case and only about 4000 characters to refute. Thats fair to both sides imo.

I like the suggesstion of team debates, but idk if it'll be implemented. I think priority #1 right now should be voting incentives. But there's been almost no mod activity outside of banning trolls.
Steve0Yea
Posts: 91
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:52:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:44:32 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:32:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
I disagree that the contender has a huge advantage, In fact, the only true advantage I see is the ability to refute your opponnts case in the first round (which is why I always specify the first round to be consstructive only). It's true that the last word is an advantage, but not much. The four debates I've lost as instigater I would've lost as contender...my Opponents simply debated better than me.

Suggestion:
In real life debate (except for LD) you have a partner. I think it would be really cool if they implemented a partner system in debates, two v. two where the first two people on each side write a constructive, than the second two write a rebuttal ect. I know it would be hard to get a round going and there would probably be alot of forfeits, but it still seems like a cool idea to me.

Not really, because they have to make their own case in addition to refuting the Pro's. So they get half the space to make a case and only about 4000 characters to refute. Thats fair to both sides imo.

I like the suggesstion of team debates, but idk if it'll be implemented. I think priority #1 right now should be voting incentives. But there's been almost no mod activity outside of banning trolls.

vote incentives would be cool... Like you have to have voted on at least 5 debates to start a new one or something. Then there would be a problem of people not reading and just voting though... Hmmmm

Some sort of points thing if you vote... or something.... Help?! lol
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:54:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:43:31 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

And yet you say that this post isn't directed to me, when you've just responded to my post???

If you really want the post directed at you, then I'd be happy to accommodate.

Maybe because since this is a debate site already, people would already disagree in perception on certain issues....I personally see no real improvement to the debating system, which is fine by itself, and find this thread annoying since its creator has been posting debates all over about the necessitated 'improvements to the ddo debating system'.

Frivolous distraction from the original offense. You did not say "there is no need for improvement." You disregarded the OP's request and proceeded to complain about the thread being "annoying". That comment was where you went wrong.

We have, if you did not notice the past comments about potential improvements...So if one member 'grumbles' over everything (?), then that means there needs to be an even greater urge to come up with ideas?

Another frivolous distraction from the original offense. Saying that other people have already posted ideas doesn't mean that you have.You didn't even bother to say that ideas were unnecessary, just that the thread annoyed you, so you just had to express your discontent.

How about we first discuss if there are actual problems in the ddo debating system in the first place without jumping to assertions that improvements are mandated or needed?

How about you first don't complain about the creation of a thread, on that thread.
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:55:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:54:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:43:31 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

And yet you say that this post isn't directed to me, when you've just responded to my post???

If you really want the post directed at you, then I'd be happy to accommodate.

Maybe because since this is a debate site already, people would already disagree in perception on certain issues....I personally see no real improvement to the debating system, which is fine by itself, and find this thread annoying since its creator has been posting debates all over about the necessitated 'improvements to the ddo debating system'.

Frivolous distraction from the original offense. You did not say "there is no need for improvement." You disregarded the OP's request and proceeded to complain about the thread being "annoying". That comment was where you went wrong.

We have, if you did not notice the past comments about potential improvements...So if one member 'grumbles' over everything (?), then that means there needs to be an even greater urge to come up with ideas?

Another frivolous distraction from the original offense. Saying that other people have already posted ideas doesn't mean that you have.You didn't even bother to say that ideas were unnecessary, just that the thread annoyed you, so you just had to express your discontent.

How about we first discuss if there are actual problems in the ddo debating system in the first place without jumping to assertions that improvements are mandated or needed?

How about you first don't complain about the creation of a thread, on that thread.

http://www.youtube.com...

This may shock you, but no one wants to have the thread spammed by you two bickering.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:57:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:55:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
This may shock you, but no one wants to have the thread spammed by you two bickering.

You're right, I apologize.
"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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:59:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:54:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:43:31 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

And yet you say that this post isn't directed to me, when you've just responded to my post???

If you really want the post directed at you, then I'd be happy to accommodate.
I'd be happy too, considering your recent behavior, it would be pleasant to see that unpopularity increase.

Maybe because since this is a debate site already, people would already disagree in perception on certain issues....I personally see no real improvement to the debating system, which is fine by itself, and find this thread annoying since its creator has been posting debates all over about the necessitated 'improvements to the ddo debating system'.

Frivolous distraction from the original offense. You did not say "there is no need for improvement." You disregarded the OP's request and proceeded to complain about the thread being "annoying". That comment was where you went wrong.

Any member can comment. The instigator of this forum does not have complete control over the forum, so therefore I do not need to fulfill his 'request'.

I disagree with his point completely and therefore, by logical inference, I have no solution to offer.


We have, if you did not notice the past comments about potential improvements...So if one member 'grumbles' over everything (?), then that means there needs to be an even greater urge to come up with ideas?

Another frivolous distraction from the original offense. Saying that other people have already posted ideas doesn't mean that you have.You didn't even bother to say that ideas were unnecessary, just that the thread annoyed you, so you just had to express your discontent.

Hmm...let's see where's the problem: other than demanding that we have to focus on the instigator's original intent, you state that my discontent does not prove that I bother to say that ideas were unecessary.

I'm confused--if I express discontent with this thread, and about the 'flaws' of the ddo system and ways to rectify it, then shouldn't it be logical to see that I consider no real improvements to be necessary? Or do I have to explain the link?

How about we first discuss if there are actual problems in the ddo debating system in the first place without jumping to assertions that improvements are mandated or needed?

How about you first don't complain about the creation of a thread, on that thread.

Another frivolous distraction that doesn't address the point...If you believe improvements to be mandated, then that means you believe that there are serious/grave problems that exist. I don't.

How about you address my point as well, 00ike?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:00:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wrote my comment after thett3 wrote his.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:02:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyway, proceed. I apologize for my friend for deciding to hone all his energy into attacking one cursory comment that I made here.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 6:57:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 12:49:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
For people who struggle with character counts...

Pro round 1: 6000
Con round 1: 7000

Pro round 2: 8000
Con round 2: 8000

I'm one of those people, and have even stopped debating now, out of frustration. It takes one or two lines to make a claim that your opponent has to refute. We all know it takes much more space to refute than it does to make a claim. If your opponent makes enough points that you have to address, he can win on sheer volume alone because there isn't enough space to adequately refute all of them. Then if you try to put it into the next round, they claim you're being unfair by not addressing the point in the last round and it should count as a concession. That's an extremely crappy and unfair tactic but there are people who do it, and do everything they can to get an edge on a technicality. If we try to limit how many issues someone can bring up in a round, they might not want to debate. I'd like to see an option for 15,000 and 20,000 characters, but even then I'm not sure that is going to solve the problem.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 7:43:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 10:37:15 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/21/2011 9:42:35 AM, 000ike wrote:
I doubt that any suggestions here would be implemented since the Mods haven't really shown a presence or interaction with members in the forums. None the less...

Problem: Contender advantage: Last Word

Solution: I propose that we make the last round for summaries ONLY, and they can end with a "vote pro" or "vote con". I suggest that instead of we put both debaters last round summaries side by side and not one on top of the other. This will counter the psychological air of victory for the last word speaker. There will be no refutations in the final round, and there will be no argumentation. Attempt at either the former or the latter would result in loss of conduct.

Last Word is a frivelous problem--there'll ALWAYS be a last word. Besides, MANY instigators have won debates (I cite Contradiction winning his debate with me, and I winning my debate with you). It's all about arguing more effectively--just because someone spoke last doesn't make them a winner.


Indeed. The most important factor to winning a debate is not forfeiting. Almost all my wins have come from me not forfeiting and my opponent forfeiting :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 11:05:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 6:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/21/2011 12:49:07 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
For people who struggle with character counts...

Pro round 1: 6000
Con round 1: 7000

Pro round 2: 8000
Con round 2: 8000

I'm one of those people, and have even stopped debating now, out of frustration. It takes one or two lines to make a claim that your opponent has to refute. We all know it takes much more space to refute than it does to make a claim. If your opponent makes enough points that you have to address, he can win on sheer volume alone because there isn't enough space to adequately refute all of them. Then if you try to put it into the next round, they claim you're being unfair by not addressing the point in the last round and it should count as a concession. That's an extremely crappy and unfair tactic but there are people who do it, and do everything they can to get an edge on a technicality. If we try to limit how many issues someone can bring up in a round, they might not want to debate. I'd like to see an option for 15,000 and 20,000 characters, but even then I'm not sure that is going to solve the problem.

I agree with this! However I do think that upping the character limit will significantly solve the problem. Perhaps there should be an additional 2,000 characters allowed for each round of debate... so Round 1 would allow up to 8K characters, Round 2 up to 10K, Round 3 up to 12K and so on up to 5 rounds (though 5 round debates are not popular anyway). I agree that character limits are very frustrating and can somewhat be used abusively if exploited.
President of DDO
dogsledracing
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 11:37:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 8:56:23 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
There seems to be a growing dissatisfaction

Growing because the owners of this site do nothing to improve it to their own detriment. They have a well organized list of improvements. They just fail to do what any young coder could do in a night because they keep hiring idiots who don't know how to code.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 3:10:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 6:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I'm one of those people, and have even stopped debating now, out of frustration. It takes one or two lines to make a claim that your opponent has to refute. We all know it takes much more space to refute than it does to make a claim. If your opponent makes enough points that you have to address, he can win on sheer volume alone because there isn't enough space to adequately refute all of them. Then if you try to put it into the next round, they claim you're being unfair by not addressing the point in the last round and it should count as a concession. That's an extremely crappy and unfair tactic but there are people who do it, and do everything they can to get an edge on a technicality. If we try to limit how many issues someone can bring up in a round, they might not want to debate. I'd like to see an option for 15,000 and 20,000 characters, but even then I'm not sure that is going to solve the problem.

I disagree. I had an opponent try this on me and I handled it just fine:
http://www.debate.org...
(my R3 opener probably put it best, and my R4 point 8 really hammered on it)
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 3:35:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 3:10:07 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/21/2011 6:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I'm one of those people, and have even stopped debating now, out of frustration. It takes one or two lines to make a claim that your opponent has to refute. We all know it takes much more space to refute than it does to make a claim. If your opponent makes enough points that you have to address, he can win on sheer volume alone because there isn't enough space to adequately refute all of them. Then if you try to put it into the next round, they claim you're being unfair by not addressing the point in the last round and it should count as a concession. That's an extremely crappy and unfair tactic but there are people who do it, and do everything they can to get an edge on a technicality. If we try to limit how many issues someone can bring up in a round, they might not want to debate. I'd like to see an option for 15,000 and 20,000 characters, but even then I'm not sure that is going to solve the problem.

I disagree. I had an opponent try this on me and I handled it just fine:
http://www.debate.org...
(my R3 opener probably put it best, and my R4 point 8 really hammered on it)

It's actually funny that you guys should bring this up, because it highlights a rather unique problem on this site that I don't believe has been addressed yet: judging. I hate to sound like an elitist, but a seasoned debater or judge will recognize the shotgun approach and see it for what it is -crap.

But judging though... I'm not sure of a proper way to solve it other than to encourage members with a lesser developed understanding of what makes a solid argument to abstain. The point system is itself absurd as well... I would champion something more like the ballot system used by the National Forensic League (PFD or LD, it doesn't matter which to me).

One additional grievances:

I understand that we all have opinions, but making debates about other site members to assess wether or not they should have been banned, won/lost, whatever is just unprofessional. I haven't seen one in a while (thankfully) but they need to stop.
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 3:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 3:35:48 AM, YYW wrote:
It's actually funny that you guys should bring this up, because it highlights a rather unique problem on this site that I don't believe has been addressed yet: judging. I hate to sound like an elitist, but a seasoned debater or judge will recognize the shotgun approach and see it for what it is -crap.

But judging though... I'm not sure of a proper way to solve it other than to encourage members with a lesser developed understanding of what makes a solid argument to abstain. The point system is itself absurd as well... I would champion something more like the ballot system used by the National Forensic League (PFD or LD, it doesn't matter which to me).

Seasoned debaters will recognize this easily, but in my link I went beyond that and stated why it was crap for anyone who didn't understand. Since you can not refute every point made by an opponent using this tactic, you might as well use your space to explain why their tactic is invalid. Couple that with a few examples of how their arguments do not work and the voters should see it clearly.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:46:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 3:28:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/22/2011 3:35:48 AM, YYW wrote:
It's actually funny that you guys should bring this up, because it highlights a rather unique problem on this site that I don't believe has been addressed yet: judging. I hate to sound like an elitist, but a seasoned debater or judge will recognize the shotgun approach and see it for what it is -crap.

But judging though... I'm not sure of a proper way to solve it other than to encourage members with a lesser developed understanding of what makes a solid argument to abstain. The point system is itself absurd as well... I would champion something more like the ballot system used by the National Forensic League (PFD or LD, it doesn't matter which to me).

Seasoned debaters will recognize this easily, but in my link I went beyond that and stated why it was crap for anyone who didn't understand. Since you can not refute every point made by an opponent using this tactic, you might as well use your space to explain why their tactic is invalid. Couple that with a few examples of how their arguments do not work and the voters should see it clearly.

You did, but a legalistic wiseass would dismiss your attacking the tactic as ad hominem -however being a seasoned debater and legalistic wiseass are mutually exclusive qualities. Indeed, many people have different ideas about what debate is. That's fantastic, but no one is absolutely right all of the time. I like the idea of different people being able to read others debates, as a learning exercise but the idea of "judging" (for an absolute win/loss) is remarkably absurd unless the win is abundantly clear. Sometimes it is, other times it isn't and two perfectly capable people can judge debates and come to entirely different conclusions when the debate is close (or at least appears to be close) -which highlights the importance of a seasoned debater/judge to judge those 'close' rounds. Be sure though, when I say "seasoned" I don't mean someone who has 999 debates about nonsense -but someone who actually has a clue what's going on (and even a little background understanding of the topic too so that the terminology doesn't go over their head).
Tsar of DDO