Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Somebody please, help.

burnbird14
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 8:08:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I need people to vote on my debate against fresnoinvasion. Three people have voted, and two were the two of us.

The debate is here:

http://www.debate.org...

Please, please vote! Thanks! :)
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 8:09:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You forfeited, so you lost.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
burnbird14
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 8:52:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Actually, he and I agree the issue was with the amount of time each person had to post arguments, so he allowed me post mine the next round. I also gave all of my arguments and reasons to vote, so it's still in the running. I just need people to vote.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 10:11:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 8:09:37 PM, mongoose wrote:
You forfeited, so you lost.

What is it with you and your brother automatically voting against people for missing a round? Like I posted to him in a comment on one of my debates -- it's immature and naive to assume that someone has lost a debate simply because they might have missed a round. It is possible for one to miss a round and still make better or more convincing arguments, and/or have their opponent not refute their contentions adequately. What you're doing is essentially vote bombing everyone who misses a round instead of providing a reasonable RFD. Even the implemented voting system on DDO would call for ONE loss of conduct point (maybe) for missing a round; to assume that one who missed said round should automatically lose points for cited sources, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, etc, is just not logical.
President of DDO
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 10:34:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 10:11:48 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 7/16/2009 8:09:37 PM, mongoose wrote:
You forfeited, so you lost.

What is it with you and your brother automatically voting against people for missing a round? Like I posted to him in a comment on one of my debates -- it's immature and naive to assume that someone has lost a debate simply because they might have missed a round. It is possible for one to miss a round and still make better or more convincing arguments, and/or have their opponent not refute their contentions adequately. What you're doing is essentially vote bombing everyone who misses a round instead of providing a reasonable RFD. Even the implemented voting system on DDO would call for ONE loss of conduct point (maybe) for missing a round; to assume that one who missed said round should automatically lose points for cited sources, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, etc, is just not logical.

They are most likely formal debaters. In real life debate, if one were to keep quiet during the entirety of the final round or perhaps even walk out the room, the win would go to the other debater/team 99% of the time. This is because not responding to an argument is identified as the equivalent to conceding to it.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 10:40:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 10:34:28 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 7/16/2009 10:11:48 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 7/16/2009 8:09:37 PM, mongoose wrote:
You forfeited, so you lost.

What is it with you and your brother automatically voting against people for missing a round? Like I posted to him in a comment on one of my debates -- it's immature and naive to assume that someone has lost a debate simply because they might have missed a round. It is possible for one to miss a round and still make better or more convincing arguments, and/or have their opponent not refute their contentions adequately. What you're doing is essentially vote bombing everyone who misses a round instead of providing a reasonable RFD. Even the implemented voting system on DDO would call for ONE loss of conduct point (maybe) for missing a round; to assume that one who missed said round should automatically lose points for cited sources, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, etc, is just not logical.

They are most likely formal debaters. In real life debate, if one were to keep quiet during the entirety of the final round or perhaps even walk out the room, the win would go to the other debater/team 99% of the time. This is because not responding to an argument is identified as the equivalent to conceding to it.

But what if you walk out and then come back later and respond to all the arguments?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 10:46:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 10:40:49 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/16/2009 10:34:28 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 7/16/2009 10:11:48 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 7/16/2009 8:09:37 PM, mongoose wrote:
You forfeited, so you lost.

What is it with you and your brother automatically voting against people for missing a round? Like I posted to him in a comment on one of my debates -- it's immature and naive to assume that someone has lost a debate simply because they might have missed a round. It is possible for one to miss a round and still make better or more convincing arguments, and/or have their opponent not refute their contentions adequately. What you're doing is essentially vote bombing everyone who misses a round instead of providing a reasonable RFD. Even the implemented voting system on DDO would call for ONE loss of conduct point (maybe) for missing a round; to assume that one who missed said round should automatically lose points for cited sources, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, etc, is just not logical.

They are most likely formal debaters. In real life debate, if one were to keep quiet during the entirety of the final round or perhaps even walk out the room, the win would go to the other debater/team 99% of the time. This is because not responding to an argument is identified as the equivalent to conceding to it.

But what if you walk out and then come back later and respond to all the arguments?

True; I'm an LD debater, and so, I see something wrong with forfeiting a round, because obviously, if they're right there in the room, and they don't give a rebuttal, it's clear that they have nothing to offer.

Still, there's a difference; if someone is capable of posting an argument, and doesn't, that's one thing - however, if a situation arises which prevents them from posting an argument, they ought not be penalized for something which they had no control over; but, then again, it depends on the issue (like forfeiting the final round vs. forfeiting round 2); still, the bad part is that it's quite difficult to differentiate between accidental and intentional forfeiture, beyond what the person him/herself says.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 10:46:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 10:40:49 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 7/16/2009 10:34:28 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 7/16/2009 10:11:48 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 7/16/2009 8:09:37 PM, mongoose wrote:
You forfeited, so you lost.

What is it with you and your brother automatically voting against people for missing a round? Like I posted to him in a comment on one of my debates -- it's immature and naive to assume that someone has lost a debate simply because they might have missed a round. It is possible for one to miss a round and still make better or more convincing arguments, and/or have their opponent not refute their contentions adequately. What you're doing is essentially vote bombing everyone who misses a round instead of providing a reasonable RFD. Even the implemented voting system on DDO would call for ONE loss of conduct point (maybe) for missing a round; to assume that one who missed said round should automatically lose points for cited sources, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, etc, is just not logical.

They are most likely formal debaters. In real life debate, if one were to keep quiet during the entirety of the final round or perhaps even walk out the room, the win would go to the other debater/team 99% of the time. This is because not responding to an argument is identified as the equivalent to conceding to it.

But what if you walk out and then come back later and respond to all the arguments?

Well if you actually just abruptly walked out of the room in the first place, I'm pretty sure the judge would delcare the other debater the winner by default in the first place. I've seen a guy flat out lose a debate for telling his opponent to shutup, so I'd assume there'd be a similar level of tolerance for walking out of the room. :D
act
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 2:40:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Formal debating in "real life" is no excuse for assuming a forfeit is equal to a loss in this context :)

Though I agree that competitive HS debates are as L_M has outlined (like, if you bail during a speech, you will probably lose the ballot), that doesn't mean that Mongoose/geese shouldn't be able to easily readjust to the paradigms of this website.

Now, if someone forfeits a couple/3/4/etc. rounds, that's bad. 1 of only 2 rounds? Maybe...but still, that shouldn't result in an automatic win for the non-forfeiting party, simply because of the way that this website is structured. If they were smart debaters, they could adapt to that paradigm :)
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 9:15:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/17/2009 2:40:41 AM, alto2osu wrote:
Formal debating in "real life" is no excuse for assuming a forfeit is equal to a loss in this context :)

Though I agree that competitive HS debates are as L_M has outlined (like, if you bail during a speech, you will probably lose the ballot), that doesn't mean that Mongoose/geese shouldn't be able to easily readjust to the paradigms of this website.

I'd have to disagree with you there as there are no paradigms for this website. People vote however they please. Some people vote on whether or not one debater actually got them to change their minds, some vote purely off whose position seemed more convincing to them and some may vote based on the demeanor of the two debaters. Although the specific point system (conduct, convincing argument, spelling/grammar and reliable sources) was an admirable idea, it was utterly futile as we still see a majority of voters awarding all seven points to one debater regardless of the debate's specifics.

If you're concerned with getting votes, then compromising to the demands of the audience is essential. You can try persuading others to adhere to your paradigm (this thread is the perfect place for this situation), but that alone seems to take a lot more effort (not to mention unlikely to succeed in most cases).
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 9:38:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/17/2009 9:21:16 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Formal debaters are the cancer killing debate. Formalities this, formalities that, blah blah blah.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 10:13:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/17/2009 9:38:56 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 7/17/2009 9:21:16 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Formal debaters are the cancer killing debate. Formalities this, formalities that, blah blah blah.



Sometimes, I think with all those files that policy debaters have and the speed they read it at, they just don't analyze the philosophy very deep. Oh wait, formal debate is a sport.

But that's not exactly on topic.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 10:33:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I found out in J-High LD that debaters talk really fast sometimes. They aren't always very articulate, either.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 10:54:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
L_M: I didn't say that this website had no paradigms at all :) I said that voters should take the differences of online debate and competitive HS debate into account when assessing missed rounds on this website.

Clearly, pandering to one's audience is crucial in any form of debate, no matter the medium. At the same time, "I do HS competitive debate and we have to finish our rounds" is not, in and of itself, a valid excuse for dropping a debater who forfeits a round on DDO.

I appreciate, specifically, Mongeese's post here, and that shows a compromise between HS debate & DDO debate, since any speech not given in HS debate will cost you the win. That's what I'm talking about.
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 10:57:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/17/2009 9:21:16 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Formal debaters are the cancer killing debate. Formalities this, formalities that, blah blah blah.

I disagree heartily :) Bad debaters, formal & informal, are the cancer killing debate. Ignorance is present no matter the format. HS debate can be incredibly fulfilling and educational for both the debaters and audience, and still be highly organized and formal.

Mind you, I tend to dislike procedural arguments unless absolutely warranted, but that isn't all that formal debate is. Again, that's all that *bad* formal debate is.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 12:01:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/17/2009 10:54:57 AM, alto2osu wrote:
L_M: I didn't say that this website had no paradigms at all :) I said that voters should take the differences of online debate and competitive HS debate into account when assessing missed rounds on this website.

I was the one to claim that this site had no paradigm (essentially, I meant that there is no real consensus). This was in response to you saying "that doesn't mean that Mongoose/geese shouldn't be able to easily readjust to the paradigms of this website." However, if you were indeed simply referring to the differences between online debate and competitive HS debate, then you and I have no quarrels here. :)

Clearly, pandering to one's audience is crucial in any form of debate, no matter the medium. At the same time, "I do HS competitive debate and we have to finish our rounds" is not, in and of itself, a valid excuse for dropping a debater who forfeits a round on DDO.


Of course it isn't a valid excuse. Appealing to tradition is a fallacy (which I hope isn't mongeese's or mongoose's motivation for adhering to this principal in question). If the rational were different however (i.e. voting someone down for forfeiting as a deterrent to discourage forfeiting), it'd be a different story. Personally, I disagree with mindset, but can appreciate it depending on the reasoning behind it.
burnbird14
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 4:06:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/17/2009 10:39:15 AM, mongeese wrote:
Forfeiting in the middle of a debate can be recovered. Forfeiting the very last round is a concession.

I agree, but I didn't forfeit the very last round.
Furthermore I came here for people to read my debate and vote on it, not get into a debate about forfeiting in a debate. Especially when it's irrelevant to the topic.