Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Absolutely Ridiculous Source Points

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:39:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I suppose I got a little off track with my own personal case study. Consider this post a pettition to lower source points to only '1' point or to raise argument points to '4' points in the interest of fairness. Please DDO, address this!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

That's an issue with the voters, not the voting system.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:44:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:42:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

That's an issue with the voters, not the voting system.

Yes, I got a bit off track with that rant. I would like to redirect my position to the points system. I feel that if you compare source points (2) to argument points (3) it gives far too much weight to sources.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:44:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

When someone gives you a vote that you don't believe is legitimate, get someone else to cast a ballot. Thus far, it seems that you have done precisely that -which is exactly the way to handle it.

Just as Ore Ele said, this is an issue with voters -not the system.
Tsar of DDO
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:45:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

There will never be a public voting option that is free from these problems...

I'll look at your debate. Maybe you'll be my first vote.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:47:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:45:37 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

There will never be a public voting option that is free from these problems...

I'll look at your debate. Maybe you'll be my first vote.

You has votin' privileges now? Wut?
Tsar of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high.

You can never be too high.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:48:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
16kadams is a repeat votebomber and has been giving out undue source points since the conservative voting block of January/February. He was put on trial for it even, and somehow got away because of a bad prosecution.
"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
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:49:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:47:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:45:37 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

There will never be a public voting option that is free from these problems...

I'll look at your debate. Maybe you'll be my first vote.

You has votin' privileges now? Wut?

YES I DOES!

I petitioned the ever-generous Airmax, and ba-da-bing!
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:48:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
16kadams is a repeat votebomber and has been giving out undue source points since the conservative voting block of January/February. He was put on trial for it even, and somehow got away because of a bad prosecution.

If you go back to June I rarely give out source points.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered.

Agreed.

DDO please address this.

I'd like to be able to switch them off when setting up the debate.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:52:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:51:45 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered.

Agreed.

DDO please address this.

I'd like to be able to switch them off when setting up the debate.

This!
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:53:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:49:35 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:47:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:45:37 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:37:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
Source points are far too high. They should be lowered. DDO please address this. They should not be two points. You can argue a perfect case, but give one shaky source and lose the debate. How? By idiots showing up to vote on sources without even reading the debate.
http://www.debate.org...

There have been votecounters, counter vote-bombs and just some idiotic voting. But in the end, there are three votes going to my opponent for sources without voting on the debate. Some looky-loos just show up, say 'hey I don't like that single source' and assign two points to the opponent without even looking at the merits of the debate.

It wouldn't be so bad if people would justly give me my 3 points for the argument and then they can give 2 points (clearly undeserved) to my opponent. But instead they just give the two points and don't spend the time reading the debate to vote on the arguments. Now I am in a situation where I could possibly lose the debate based simply on source votes even though I have the majority of argument votes. (Davidtaylor's vote does not count. The idiot votes on all anti-theist posts without reading the debate. Just look at his profile.)
I am pissed. And I am angry. And I hope some person, whose very sensibilities are offended by this injustice will help remedy this situation by doing me the--oh so terrible--favor of simply reading the debate. Just read it. I am confident enough in the debate to feel that I'll earn those points if you read it.

There will never be a public voting option that is free from these problems...

I'll look at your debate. Maybe you'll be my first vote.

You has votin' privileges now? Wut?

YES I DOES!

I petitioned the ever-generous Airmax, and ba-da-bing!

Dat Airmax fellow be a'ight if I does say so myself...
Tsar of DDO
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:19:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Cool story, bro.

Plus, your case was far from perfect. You caught me on a technicality that I probably could have done a better job arguing. Plus, I believe I should have won that debate. Hitchslap and Orator are clearly biased voters. But I wouldn't even be making that statement if you'd stop trying to get people to vote for you. You seriously just need to give it a rest.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:24:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:19:15 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Cool story, bro.

Plus, your case was far from perfect. You caught me on a technicality that I probably could have done a better job arguing. Plus, I believe I should have won that debate. Hitchslap and Orator are clearly biased voters. But I wouldn't even be making that statement if you'd stop trying to get people to vote for you. You seriously just need to give it a rest.

You mean exactly how you did by posting in the votebomb forums? Writing in comments incessantly? And sending a message out for people to review your debate?
Viper-King
Posts: 4,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:43:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seriously, Axiom? I read the entire debate. I'm actually using it as for my article. Your accusation at me is full of lies and slander. I countered HitchSlap's because I felt it was unreasonable because his (16kadam's) RFD wasn't vague and had legitimate reason. You've lost my respect for calling me an idiot who didn't read the debate when I read the entire debate.
Viper-King
Posts: 4,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:45:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seriously 00Ike? You countered my vote because 16kadam's RFD is legitimate? Also I'm not part of any voting block. Just making that clear.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:33:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:43:02 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Seriously, Axiom? I read the entire debate. I'm actually using it as for my article. Your accusation at me is full of lies and slander. I countered HitchSlap's because I felt it was unreasonable because his (16kadam's) RFD wasn't vague and had legitimate reason. You've lost my respect for calling me an idiot who didn't read the debate when I read the entire debate.

I never called you an idiot. I called the ones who didn't read the debate and voted solely on sources idiots. And I should't have even called them that. It was rude of me and I apologize to them.
In your case, you gave only source points, but gave no 'argument' points even though you said you felt Con had won. I wish you had. But your example was only to point out how source points screw up the system.
But once again, I was impassioned when I wrote this and I doubtlessly tread on a few toes. I could tell by your RFD that you actually read the debate since you refferred to the arguments made. You weren't simply showing up, seeing someone said 'evilbible.com' and automatically assinging two points to my opponent without reading anything further. My insults weren't directed at you.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:41:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Source point are high for philosophy in particular, where the arguments is what counts the most. Arguments should be like 4.

In most cases in philosophy its an false appeal to authory fallacy. In that its not the philosopher that makes the argument true, but rather the rationality behind the argument .
p1 My mom is my authority.
p2 My mom said x is true
c1 Therefore x is true.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:44:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: A good trick is to just make it apart of you acceptence round. Or even redistribute then for another thing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:51:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:41:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Source point are high for philosophy in particular, where the arguments is what counts the most. Arguments should be like 4.

In most cases in philosophy its an false appeal to authory fallacy. In that its not the philosopher that makes the argument true, but rather the rationality behind the argument .
p1 My mom is my authority.
p2 My mom said x is true
c1 Therefore x is true.

I see that less on the graduate level then among (especially first or second year) undergraduate students of philosophy. They will make arguments like:

Noam Chomsky says X.
(Then they assume that whatever Noam Chomsky says is true.)
And then... Huzza! X is true!

Ostensibly its entertaining... as if somehow being published in an academic journal is the validation of the truth of one's claims! What fun that would be... but It's depressing, really... though often not their fault. The problem is that they were taught in a banking-style environment rather than a problem-posing environment. It sucks... but it is the way it is.
Tsar of DDO
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:56:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:24:05 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:19:15 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Cool story, bro.

Plus, your case was far from perfect. You caught me on a technicality that I probably could have done a better job arguing. Plus, I believe I should have won that debate. Hitchslap and Orator are clearly biased voters. But I wouldn't even be making that statement if you'd stop trying to get people to vote for you. You seriously just need to give it a rest.

You mean exactly how you did by posting in the votebomb forums? Writing in comments incessantly? And sending a message out for people to review your debate?

No, I haven't done that. I was trying to enact damage control because you're trying to poison the well by telling people you won so they should vote for you before they even read the debate. You're already skewing their opinion in your favor.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:03:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:56:48 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:24:05 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:19:15 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Cool story, bro.

Plus, your case was far from perfect. You caught me on a technicality that I probably could have done a better job arguing. Plus, I believe I should have won that debate. Hitchslap and Orator are clearly biased voters. But I wouldn't even be making that statement if you'd stop trying to get people to vote for you. You seriously just need to give it a rest.

You mean exactly how you did by posting in the votebomb forums? Writing in comments incessantly? And sending a message out for people to review your debate?

No, I haven't done that. I was trying to enact damage control because you're trying to poison the well by telling people you won so they should vote for you before they even read the debate. You're already skewing their opinion in your favor.

And this is precisely one of the reasons why I stopped debating on this site. It's not worth the time and effort we put forward. Both debaters are correct in that these practices occur and they destroy any credibility debates have anymore.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:05:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is why I like to add the rule that sources are not to be voted on. If someone makes a claim requiring a source but gives no source, you can just treat it as an unsubstantiated claim. Simple as 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)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:38:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:48:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
16kadams is a repeat votebomber and has been giving out undue source points since the conservative voting block of January/February. He was put on trial for it even, and somehow got away because of a bad prosecution.

You shoulda had Rob text me lol I've always wanted to prosecute/ defend someone :P
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:43:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the logic is that credible sources are important to a debate, perhaps more than conduct and spelling but less than arguments. I would personally change the Spelling and Grammar standard to be "Organization" in general, since some debates are just much harder to read and get through than others. Perhaps Sources should be eliminated all together and reflected in the Arguments vote. I've never seen someone win arguments but lose sources (since usually the sources validate the arguments). I've also seen people v-bomb using the Sources standard, insisting one side had better sources without really explaining why. However, in some debates, one side really DOES use shoddy sources. I can't tell you how many debates I've done - particularly on the issue of gay rights - where my opponent used (sometimes strictly) sources from really biased religious websites. It's really a toss up. Overall I don't see a problem with it.
President of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:55:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:51:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/19/2012 2:41:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Source point are high for philosophy in particular, where the arguments is what counts the most. Arguments should be like 4.

In most cases in philosophy its an false appeal to authory fallacy. In that its not the philosopher that makes the argument true, but rather the rationality behind the argument .
p1 My mom is my authority.
p2 My mom said x is true
c1 Therefore x is true.

I see that less on the graduate level then among (especially first or second year) undergraduate students of philosophy. They will make arguments like:

Noam Chomsky says X.
(Then they assume that whatever Noam Chomsky says is true.)
And then... Huzza! X is true!

Ostensibly its entertaining... as if somehow being published in an academic journal is the validation of the truth of one's claims! What fun that would be... but It's depressing, really... though often not their fault. The problem is that they were taught in a banking-style environment rather than a problem-posing environment. It sucks... but it is the way it is.

The Fool: I don;t think many people are used to that fallacy. I swear people will actualy be convinced that they don't exist, just because some authority said so. Many are convinced out of thier own consciousness. Ike is convinced his Consiousness it an illusion. Lol. But he has to be conscious to have an illusion. <(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:37:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

That's an issue with the voters, not the voting system.

+1 If someone claims a bunch of statistics for an argument without suing sources or unethically "fudges" data, 2 points is good. However, people abuse the vote with tings such as "he used more sources, or he used wikipedia". Source voting should not be opinionated and rarely used.

However, I feel points don't really matter. It is best just to read feedback. It is irrelevant want a biased ignorant person scores the debate.