Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Rules and definitions

Hardcore.Pwnography
Posts: 4,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 11:06:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just a question, and I want to know your thoughts, in a debate, it is the Instigator (usually pro)'s responsibility to set down rules and definitions, correct?

If the instigator does not, CON can set down rules and definitions in the debate, correct?

If Pro does not contest these rules or definitions in the first round, then it is assumed that he agrees with it, correct?

This is what happened in this debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 1:00:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's all stuff that's open to be argued about debate by debate.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 1:37:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way I see it, if a rule or definition is posted in the first round by the Instigator, then the Contender must accept that rule or definition for the debate, since he or she had the option to decline at that time. After the Contender accepts, everything is up to debate.
Hardcore.Pwnography
Posts: 4,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 1:42:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 1:37:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
The way I see it, if a rule or definition is posted in the first round by the Instigator, then the Contender must accept that rule or definition for the debate, since he or she had the option to decline at that time. After the Contender accepts, everything is up to debate.

Yes, I totally agree. But what about the case where the instigator does not post any rules or definitions?
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:05:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 1:42:48 PM, Hardcore.Pwnography wrote:
At 12/31/2011 1:37:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
The way I see it, if a rule or definition is posted in the first round by the Instigator, then the Contender must accept that rule or definition for the debate, since he or she had the option to decline at that time. After the Contender accepts, everything is up to debate.

Yes, I totally agree. But what about the case where the instigator does not post any rules or definitions?

Usually the first round is acceptance. PM/Comment to determine the definitions...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:50:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is the instigators role to provide definitions and clarify what the debate is about, and failure to do so does open the door for semantics or definitions made by the contender. However, this does not give the contender the right to make up whatever definitions fit their argument. Even without definitions it is normally clear what the instigator is arguing for. Any clarifications made by the contender should fall within a reasonable interpretation of the resolution before being accepted by the voters.

In your debate you set an unreasonable time limit for the resolution to be affirmed. There was no reason for anyone to think that Pro was arguing we would save money in the first month so it appeared as though you were just trying to take advantage of your opponent's mistake rather then to have an honest debate. It is true that he did not challenge your definition but in the voter's opinion which I share, that does not outweigh your conduct.
Hardcore.Pwnography
Posts: 4,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 5:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 3:50:20 PM, Double_R wrote:
It is the instigators role to provide definitions and clarify what the debate is about, and failure to do so does open the door for semantics or definitions made by the contender. However, this does not give the contender the right to make up whatever definitions fit their argument. Even without definitions it is normally clear what the instigator is arguing for. Any clarifications made by the contender should fall within a reasonable interpretation of the resolution before being accepted by the voters.

In your debate you set an unreasonable time limit for the resolution to be affirmed. There was no reason for anyone to think that Pro was arguing we would save money in the first month so it appeared as though you were just trying to take advantage of your opponent's mistake rather then to have an honest debate. It is true that he did not challenge your definition but in the voter's opinion which I share, that does not outweigh your conduct.

Okay, so bad conduct, but which side would you give arguments to then?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 5:53:19 PM, Hardcore.Pwnography wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:50:20 PM, Double_R wrote:
It is the instigators role to provide definitions and clarify what the debate is about, and failure to do so does open the door for semantics or definitions made by the contender. However, this does not give the contender the right to make up whatever definitions fit their argument. Even without definitions it is normally clear what the instigator is arguing for. Any clarifications made by the contender should fall within a reasonable interpretation of the resolution before being accepted by the voters.

In your debate you set an unreasonable time limit for the resolution to be affirmed. There was no reason for anyone to think that Pro was arguing we would save money in the first month so it appeared as though you were just trying to take advantage of your opponent's mistake rather then to have an honest debate. It is true that he did not challenge your definition but in the voter's opinion which I share, that does not outweigh your conduct.

Okay, so bad conduct, but which side would you give arguments to then?

I would still give arguments to Pro. The entire debate hinged on whether your definition was accepted. Based on what I explained before I don't feel yours should have been.
Hardcore.Pwnography
Posts: 4,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:01:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:50:10 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/1/2012 5:53:19 PM, Hardcore.Pwnography wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:50:20 PM, Double_R wrote:
It is the instigators role to provide definitions and clarify what the debate is about, and failure to do so does open the door for semantics or definitions made by the contender. However, this does not give the contender the right to make up whatever definitions fit their argument. Even without definitions it is normally clear what the instigator is arguing for. Any clarifications made by the contender should fall within a reasonable interpretation of the resolution before being accepted by the voters.

In your debate you set an unreasonable time limit for the resolution to be affirmed. There was no reason for anyone to think that Pro was arguing we would save money in the first month so it appeared as though you were just trying to take advantage of your opponent's mistake rather then to have an honest debate. It is true that he did not challenge your definition but in the voter's opinion which I share, that does not outweigh your conduct.

Okay, so bad conduct, but which side would you give arguments to then?

I would still give arguments to Pro. The entire debate hinged on whether your definition was accepted. Based on what I explained before I don't feel yours should have been.

Alright, thanks for the reply.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 1:05:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
IMHO:

If the instigator does not, CON can set down rules and definitions in the debate, correct?

No. Con could then make rules and definitions overwhelmingly in his favor.

If Pro does not contest these rules or definitions in the first round, then it is assumed that he agrees with it, correct?

Con has no right to make rules. The DDO site rules apply with respect to the voting categories. Voters get to decide who has the burden of proof. Pro cannot add rules after the opening round.

If Pro does not provide definitions, then words are taken with the ordinary dictionary meanings appropriate to the context of the resolution. Sometimes the resolution is too ambiguous to be sure of the meaning, then Con can make a reasonable interpretation. To avoid ambiguity, Pro should make the intention of the resolution clear in the challenge.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:27:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 11:06:40 AM, Hardcore.Pwnography wrote:
Just a question, and I want to know your thoughts, in a debate, it is the Instigator (usually pro)'s responsibility to set down rules and definitions, correct?

If the instigator does not, CON can set down rules and definitions in the debate, correct?

If Pro does not contest these rules or definitions in the first round, then it is assumed that he agrees with it, correct?

This is what happened in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

I don't see that you defined your terms within the restrictions set by PRO in the first argument. So even if you were going to try and weasel out some sort of victory based on some open-ended grant by PRO to define the terms, that isn't even the case here.

Unless, of course, you can present some dictionary that defines "save money" as to necessarily include the first month.

Otherwise it was a failed attempt at a semantics win.