Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Instigators should be Pro

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 5:26:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can think of only one legitimate reason why an Instigator of a debate should be Con. That's when a person want to practice the Con side of an academic debate topic, and wants to get an unknown Pro case. It's a little awkward, but that can be achieved by using the resolution "Topic X is negated."

All resolutions can be stated as affirmatives. Requiring that has benefits:

1. It's less confusing to both the debaters and the readers. I tend to confuse the "Pro" and "Con" names when Con instigates.

2. It gives the burden of proof by default to the Instigator/Proponent. Some members think the burden should go with the Instigator and other member think it goes with Pro. They would then be the same. The Instigator can still declare that as a condition of acceptance Con must accept the burden of proof, but it sets the default.

3. It ends the game of Con phrasing the resolution backwards solely to pass off the default burden of proof.

4. It will encourage Instigators to pick topics they know more about, because they are in the position of advocating and have to make an opening argument. We'll get better debates to read. Each side automatically gets an equal number of arguments when Pro initiates. That's also true if the first round is for acceptance.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 5:34:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Every one of those points are true. I'd like to add that when instigators choose to be Con, some of them are sneakily trying to push the BOP without explicitly stating it. Some might even want Pro (the contender) to start and bypass their last round so the instigator gets the last word as well. So, they want
1) to set the rules
2) to push the BOP on Pro
3) to get the last word

All of which are unfair tactics.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:50:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 5:26:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I can think of only one legitimate reason why an Instigator of a debate should be Con. That's when a person want to practice the Con side of an academic debate topic, and wants to get an unknown Pro case. It's a little awkward, but that can be achieved by using the resolution "Topic X is negated."

I like to refute the free will defense. To do that, I need the other guy to go first, and state his version of the FWD. Otherwise, he can disavow any version I offer.

So, it's not that I want unknown pro cases in an academic argument. It's that I want to show more people that the FWD sucks. But I have to let each individual opponent state his individual argument.

This seems to me legitimate, but if it doesn't seem legitimate to you, that's okay

All resolutions can be stated as affirmatives. Requiring that has benefits:

1. It's less confusing to both the debaters and the readers. I tend to confuse the "Pro" and "Con" names when Con instigates.

I agree that a lot of debates are needlessly confusing. Many start with no resolution at all, and you have to figure out who's on which side as you read the debate. Sometimes even the principles are confused. We can do a lot better.

2. It gives the burden of proof by default to the Instigator/Proponent. Some members think the burden should go with the Instigator and other member think it goes with Pro. They would then be the same. The Instigator can still declare that as a condition of acceptance Con must accept the burden of proof, but it sets the default.

Seems to me that the burden should go to the Pro every time.

It also seems to me that the instigator should make clear where the burden lies.

3. It ends the game of Con phrasing the resolution backwards solely to pass off the default burden of proof.

I'm not sure this bothers me.

4. It will encourage Instigators to pick topics they know more about, because they are in the position of advocating and have to make an opening argument. We'll get better debates to read. Each side automatically gets an equal number of arguments when Pro initiates. That's also true if the first round is for acceptance.

Each side should get the same number of arguments. That can be achieved though, even if Con initiates.

Here's an idea for reducing confusion. The responding party shouldn't be called the "Contender" when the negative is called "Con." It's too easy to think that Con stands for Contender when the Contender is sometimes actually Pro.

Of course, your proposal would also eliminate that problem.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:50:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:50:10 PM, wiploc wrote:
I like to refute the free will defense. To do that, I need the other guy to go first, and state his version of the FWD. Otherwise, he can disavow any version I offer.

You could be Pro on "My opponent's has no valid case for free will." Then say "My opponent will assume the burden of proof and I will on pass the last argument to make the sides even." This is somewhat awkward, but it makes it clear you are requiring your opponent to accept the burden of proof. Otherwise some think the Instigator has the burden.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 9:37:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose you could always just give the criminal the choice of which method he would prefer to die by...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 11:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate the Affirmative always speaks first. I agree with you Roy. If you wanted to go Con on this site than just change the resolution.

For example, instead of "The USFG should permit the sale of human organs" change it to "The USFG should not permit the sale of human organs" and affirm
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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:33:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 9:37:14 PM, phantom wrote:
I suppose you could always just give the criminal the choice of which method he would prefer to die by...

Wrong thread, Lol

How did I not catch that...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:03:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 11:45:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
In Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate the Affirmative always speaks first. I agree with you Roy. If you wanted to go Con on this site than just change the resolution.

For example, instead of "The USFG should permit the sale of human organs" change it to "The USFG should not permit the sale of human organs" and affirm

That would become an invalid resolution; the resolution has to always be positive (I may have got this confused with BPS debates though...)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 6:45:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:03:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

That would become an invalid resolution; the resolution has to always be positive (I may have got this confused with BPS debates though...)

So, ""The USFG should not permit the sale of human organs," would be bad, but, "The USFG should forbid the sale of human organs," would be just fine? Seems like a distinction without a difference.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 6:57:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 6:45:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/15/2011 4:03:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

That would become an invalid resolution; the resolution has to always be positive (I may have got this confused with BPS debates though...)

So, ""The USFG should not permit the sale of human organs," would be bad, but, "The USFG should forbid the sale of human organs," would be just fine? Seems like a distinction without a difference.

Actually, there is a distinction. The word "not" makes it confusing.