Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Instigator Override

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 5:48:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it okay to deny the terms of acceptance and still accept a debate?

Some people like to make foolish and ridiculous terms of acceptance, such as giving themselves immunity from argumentation and putting it solely on his opponent, others place the whole burden of proof on the contender, when the topic dictates that they are the one with that burden.

I think generally find myself almost taking off conduct from people who do this because its a disrespect of the formal debate. It is not a debate if the burden of proof is improperly distributed, and it is not a debate if the other side decides that he does not have to argue about anything.

Thoughts?
"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
9/17/2011 5:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Usually members try to negotiate if they want to plan a debate between each other. However, I have seen debates where the contender has challenged the instigator's definitions or certain conditions with an alternative. Unless if the instigator makes a statement such as, "If you accept this debate, you are also accepting the rules I have outlined by default", then I believe that it is alright to do so.
"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
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 6:32:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Accepting a debate challenge is voluntary. If a person chooses to accept a challenge they get the whole package, including accepting the terms of the debate.

Proposing unreasonable terms is not a conduct violation, unless the instigator has found a way to violate the DDO terms of service. It's not a conduct violation, because the terms are presented up front.They are known to the person who accepts.

I have see debates where the challenger accepts, then tries to impose additional conditions on the debate. I think that is a conduct violation, because it is an attempt to unilaterally change the judging criteria in favor of the challenger.

Negotiate the terms before accepting, or let it pass.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 6:53:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you voluntarily accept the debate, then you have also agreed to the terms of acceptance, by definition. Stated rules, such as placement of burden of proof and round strucutres, are terms of acceptance. I believe that definitions of words in the resolution are equally established, and I'm willing to debate anyone who disagrees.
curious18
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 6:59:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 6:53:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you voluntarily accept the debate, then you have also agreed to the terms of acceptance, by definition. Stated rules, such as placement of burden of proof and round strucutres, are terms of acceptance. I believe that definitions of words in the resolution are equally established, and I'm willing to debate anyone who disagrees.

Yeah, but surely you agree that there are exceptions to this rule. Like in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., where izbo10 challenged tarzan, but said in the OP that this was for Mattsrodtom and later tried to claim that the person he challenged's arguments don't count because they weren't Matt's. That's totally not cool.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 7:07:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 6:59:03 PM, curious18 wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:53:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you voluntarily accept the debate, then you have also agreed to the terms of acceptance, by definition. Stated rules, such as placement of burden of proof and round strucutres, are terms of acceptance. I believe that definitions of words in the resolution are equally established, and I'm willing to debate anyone who disagrees.

Yeah, but surely you agree that there are exceptions to this rule. Like in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., where izbo10 challenged tarzan, but said in the OP that this was for Mattsrodtom and later tried to claim that the person he challenged's arguments don't count because they weren't Matt's. That's totally not cool.

Note too, that I gave Izbo the opportunity to correct the error...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 7:57:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 7:07:43 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:59:03 PM, curious18 wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:53:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you voluntarily accept the debate, then you have also agreed to the terms of acceptance, by definition. Stated rules, such as placement of burden of proof and round strucutres, are terms of acceptance. I believe that definitions of words in the resolution are equally established, and I'm willing to debate anyone who disagrees.

Yeah, but surely you agree that there are exceptions to this rule. Like in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., where izbo10 challenged tarzan, but said in the OP that this was for Mattsrodtom and later tried to claim that the person he challenged's arguments don't count because they weren't Matt's. That's totally not cool.

Note too, that I gave Izbo the opportunity to correct the error...

It is true that it was unfair, but you should just have declined. If anyone instigates a debate with me and tells me that I can neither set up the rules nor have the last word, I would decline straight away because that would be extremely unfair.

Why did you accept those unfair terms and then post an argument in the last round anyway? Declining was an always an option.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 8:54:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 6:59:03 PM, curious18 wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:53:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you voluntarily accept the debate, then you have also agreed to the terms of acceptance, by definition. Stated rules, such as placement of burden of proof and round strucutres, are terms of acceptance. I believe that definitions of words in the resolution are equally established, and I'm willing to debate anyone who disagrees.

Yeah, but surely you agree that there are exceptions to this rule. Like in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., where izbo10 challenged tarzan, but said in the OP that this was for Mattsrodtom and later tried to claim that the person he challenged's arguments don't count because they weren't Matt's. That's totally not cool.

At that point, the rule implodes because mattrodstorm isn't in the debate to receive the burden of proof. Most rules, however, do not implode, so we should be talking about them.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 9:09:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Generally speaking, people should negotiate rules in the comments before accepting--at least in my opinion. Thus, if you actually accept, you're accepting the rules too.
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 9:09:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Generally speaking, people should negotiate rules in the comments before accepting--at least in my opinion. Thus, if you actually accept, you're accepting the rules too.

Troll Debate: A debate which is created to show either lack of seriousness (exception being joke debates (titled as such) or lack of effort. Not a legitimate debate.

Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If Nono decided to warn us before sabotaging the debate, would that suddenly legitimize her actions? I don't think so.
"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
9/17/2011 9:19:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:09:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Generally speaking, people should negotiate rules in the comments before accepting--at least in my opinion. Thus, if you actually accept, you're accepting the rules too.

Troll Debate: A debate which is created to show either lack of seriousness (exception being joke debates (titled as such) or lack of effort. Not a legitimate debate.

Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If Nono decided to warn us before sabotaging the debate, would that suddenly legitimize her actions? I don't think so.

Troll debates are like the quantum physics of debate rules. What I'm saying applies to a legit debate.
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
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 12:23:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 7:57:14 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/17/2011 7:07:43 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:59:03 PM, curious18 wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:53:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you voluntarily accept the debate, then you have also agreed to the terms of acceptance, by definition. Stated rules, such as placement of burden of proof and round strucutres, are terms of acceptance. I believe that definitions of words in the resolution are equally established, and I'm willing to debate anyone who disagrees.

Yeah, but surely you agree that there are exceptions to this rule. Like in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., where izbo10 challenged tarzan, but said in the OP that this was for Mattsrodtom and later tried to claim that the person he challenged's arguments don't count because they weren't Matt's. That's totally not cool.

Note too, that I gave Izbo the opportunity to correct the error...

It is true that it was unfair, but you should just have declined. If anyone instigates a debate with me and tells me that I can neither set up the rules nor have the last word, I would decline straight away because that would be extremely unfair.

Why did you accept those unfair terms and then post an argument in the last round anyway? Declining was an always an option.

If he had changed the "rules" to attempt to restrict me, I would have declined, since the resolution would have been undebatable. But since he refused to change it, I decided we would play by his rules. It's not my fault they were deficient.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 12:35:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:09:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Generally speaking, people should negotiate rules in the comments before accepting--at least in my opinion. Thus, if you actually accept, you're accepting the rules too.

Troll Debate: A debate which is created to show either lack of seriousness (exception being joke debates (titled as such) or lack of effort. Not a legitimate debate.

Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If the rules are set up so that the Instigator doesn't do anything, and you feel the rules are unfair, then don't accept the debate, period.

If Nono decided to warn us before sabotaging the debate, would that suddenly legitimize her actions? I don't think so.

I'm not aware of the situation you're referring to.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 1:07:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 12:35:25 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If the rules are set up so that the Instigator doesn't do anything, and you feel the rules are unfair, then don't accept the debate, period.

Id have to disagree. If someone is making a ridiculous rule (like not having to argue) then what they are proposing is not a debate, which is what this website is for. Debates like this lower the quality of this site and this type of conduct should not be accepted. In the end the voters will decide if the challengers actions were warranted.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 1:09:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 1:07:43 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/18/2011 12:35:25 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If the rules are set up so that the Instigator doesn't do anything, and you feel the rules are unfair, then don't accept the debate, period.

Id have to disagree. If someone is making a ridiculous rule (like not having to argue) then what they are proposing is not a debate, which is what this website is for. Debates like this lower the quality of this site and this type of conduct should not be accepted. In the end the voters will decide if the challengers actions were warranted.

The point is is that if it's an unreasonable debate--YOU DON'T NEED TO ACCEPT IT.
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
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 3:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 1:07:43 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/18/2011 12:35:25 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If the rules are set up so that the Instigator doesn't do anything, and you feel the rules are unfair, then don't accept the debate, period.

Id have to disagree. If someone is making a ridiculous rule (like not having to argue) then what they are proposing is not a debate, which is what this website is for. Debates like this lower the quality of this site and this type of conduct should not be accepted. In the end the voters will decide if the challengers actions were warranted.

If that's the case, then let the challenge expire. We don't want such a debate to end up on the front page.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 3:59:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 1:09:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The point is is that if it's an unreasonable debate--YOU DON'T NEED TO ACCEPT IT.

This is not a shouting match. Logic would be appreciated.

At 9/18/2011 3:43:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If that's the case, then let the challenge expire. We don't want such a debate to end up on the front page.

No we don't. If no one accepts and it expires that is the best scenerio. But there is always someone who will come along and accept who either condones it or will not properly read the rules, sending a message to other trolls that they'll get away with it.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 8:53:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 3:43:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If that's the case, then let the challenge expire. We don't want such a debate to end up on the front page.

No we don't. If no one accepts and it expires that is the best scenerio. But there is always someone who will come along and accept who either condones it or will not properly read the rules, sending a message to other trolls that they'll get away with it.

How often does this happen?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 9:31:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 1:07:43 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/18/2011 12:35:25 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/17/2011 9:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Making a debate where one exempts himself from argumentation, or significantly limits the amount of effort and work he has to put in, is not a legitimate debate. If it was somehow okay to accept Nono's troll debates and deny whatever topic he chose simply for the purpose of preventing people from accepting a debate that won't be taken seriously, then how is it not okay to accept a troll debate by someone else where he decides he doesn't have to argue?

If the rules are set up so that the Instigator doesn't do anything, and you feel the rules are unfair, then don't accept the debate, period.

Id have to disagree. If someone is making a ridiculous rule (like not having to argue) then what they are proposing is not a debate, which is what this website is for. Debates like this lower the quality of this site and this type of conduct should not be accepted. In the end the voters will decide if the challengers actions were warranted.

I'd have to agree with this - there's really no reason to put unwarranted restrictions on debates. And especially if someone challenges me specifically, I'm much less inclined to follow a restriction I feel is unwarranted regardless if whether I accept the debate. I'll leave it up to the voters if any restrictions I view as unwarranted really were.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 10:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've had quite a few debates in which the voters decided that one of the restrictions that I placed on my opponent was unwarranted, I think it was usually for "I will not contradict myself" debates. The rules were clear, and my opponent had evidently read them, and I saw nothing unfair about them, but I was powerless to stop the voters from voting conduct against me for a rule that both debaters found to be fair.