Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Instigators Must Argue First

CriticalThinkingMachine
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 5:18:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Instigators Must Argue First and Contenders Must Argue Last

Having the last word is pretty big deal in debates. It can certainly be a factor in who wins the debate. It is understandable why everyone wants to have the last word, but only one side can, and we should understand why the contender should always get the last word.

I wish that I could be the contender in all my debates (so that I could always have the last word) but that's just not the way it is. By instigating a debate, I take it upon myself to decide what topic will be debated and the parameters of the debate. If I am the instigator of the debate, it only seems fair that I instigate the arguments as well. I already have the upper hand by choosing the topic. I should not have the additional advantage of arguing last.

Asking your opponent to make his first argument in round one for example (while you simply lay out the specifics of what the debate is about) and then asking him to not make an argument for the last round shows both a lack of debater etiquette and debater integrity on the part of the instigator.

Below is a link to a debate in which the instigator did just this. I wanted to take this debate but did not because he pulled this little stunt.

http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 5:26:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
you know you can ask that the person not argue in the last round....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 10:10:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 5:18:12 PM, CriticalThinkingMachine wrote:
Instigators Must Argue First and Contenders Must Argue Last

Having the last word is pretty big deal in debates. It can certainly be a factor in who wins the debate. It is understandable why everyone wants to have the last word, but only one side can, and we should understand why the contender should always get the last word.

I wish that I could be the contender in all my debates (so that I could always have the last word) but that's just not the way it is. By instigating a debate, I take it upon myself to decide what topic will be debated and the parameters of the debate. If I am the instigator of the debate, it only seems fair that I instigate the arguments as well. I already have the upper hand by choosing the topic. I should not have the additional advantage of arguing last.

Asking your opponent to make his first argument in round one for example (while you simply lay out the specifics of what the debate is about) and then asking him to not make an argument for the last round shows both a lack of debater etiquette and debater integrity on the part of the instigator.

I rarely use this debate format but I think its wrong of you to charge people who do as lacking integrity.

For starters by not providing an argument in the first round you need your opponent not to argue in the last round to even it up, other wise they get an extra round of argumentation.

The main problem is if the Pro isn't going first and the Con only has to negate, how can they can't negate Pros argument until they first errrr argue it.

Below is a link to a debate in which the instigator did just this. I wanted to take this debate but did not because he pulled this little stunt.

If you don't like the debate its not like it set in stone. He ain't moses coming down from a hill eh ?You can always ask the person, hey I want to do the debate where you go first I and go last or what ever. Try some negotiation first eh ?

http://www.debate.org...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
CriticalThinkingMachine
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:18:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I rarely use this debate format but I think its wrong of you to charge people who do as lacking integrity.

For starters by not providing an argument in the first round you need your opponent not to argue in the last round to even it up, other wise they get an extra round of argumentation.

The main problem is if the Pro isn't going first and the Con only has to negate, how can they can't negate Pros argument until they first errrr argue it.

Below is a link to a debate in which the instigator did just this. I wanted to take this debate but did not because he pulled this little stunt.

If you don't like the debate its not like it set in stone. He ain't moses coming down from a hill eh ?You can always ask the person, hey I want to do the debate where you go first I and go last or what ever. Try some negotiation first eh ?

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

Why do you think it is wrong of me to charge people who use this format of lacking integrity? Do you have an actual reason or is it just because you yourself have done it?

I realize that by not providing an argument in the first round you need your opponent to not argue in the last round to even things up. This is obvious. My complaint wasn't that IF you don't argue in the first round, then your opponent should still get to argue in the last round, my complaint was that instigators should not forgo arguing the first round in the first place.

I get your point about Pro not going first and Con only having to negate. But this problem is easily solved if the instigator is always pro, and it is always possible by the way the instigator chooses to word the resolution. The instigator is not compelled to be pro. For example, if you believe in gay marriage and want to argue for it, instead of saying "Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal" and then being Con, you can make it "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and then be Pro. I think that debaters should be consistent. Instigator should always be pro, and contenders should always be con.

As for your last point, forgive me. I did not know that one may do this. But I hope that most debaters have enough sense to avoid this in the first place and do not need to be asked to.

And your quote at the bottom has absolutely nothing to do with this forum post.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 1:13:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 11:18:16 PM, CriticalThinkingMachine wrote:
I rarely use this debate format but I think its wrong of you to charge people who do as lacking integrity.

For starters by not providing an argument in the first round you need your opponent not to argue in the last round to even it up, other wise they get an extra round of argumentation.

The main problem is if the Pro isn't going first and the Con only has to negate, how can they can't negate Pros argument until they first errrr argue it.

Below is a link to a debate in which the instigator did just this. I wanted to take this debate but did not because he pulled this little stunt.

If you don't like the debate its not like it set in stone. He ain't moses coming down from a hill eh ?You can always ask the person, hey I want to do the debate where you go first I and go last or what ever. Try some negotiation first eh ?

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

Why do you think it is wrong of me to charge people who use this format of lacking integrity? Do you have an actual reason or is it just because you yourself have done it?

1) Cause you don't have sufficient justification for it.
2) Cause I have done it once ? can't remember but I at least want to keep this option open for myself later on.
3) In my experience at least most people aren't trying to be underhanded in some way, its just another way to set up a debate. Yes some have and will do it for dishonest reasons but to say that ANYONE who does it...............

I realize that by not providing an argument in the first round you need your opponent to not argue in the last round to even things up. This is obvious. My complaint wasn't that IF you don't argue in the first round, then your opponent should still get to argue in the last round, my complaint was that instigators should not forgo arguing the first round in the first place.

I get your point about Pro not going first and Con only having to negate. But this problem is easily solved if the instigator is always pro, and it is always possible by the way the instigator chooses to word the resolution. The instigator is not compelled to be pro. For example, if you believe in gay marriage and want to argue for it, instead of saying "Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal" and then being Con, you can make it "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and then be Pro. I think that debaters should be consistent. Instigator should always be pro, and contenders should always be con.

As for your last point, forgive me. I did not know that one may do this. But I hope that most debaters have enough sense to avoid this in the first place and do not need to be asked to.

And your quote at the bottom has absolutely nothing to do with this forum post.

It's a signature, something that is posted automatically. You can see this in your next reply by clicking the link edit signature.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:19:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 5:18:12 PM, CriticalThinkingMachine wrote:
Instigators Must Argue First and Contenders Must Argue Last

Or not.

Having the last word is pretty big deal in debates. It can certainly be a factor in who wins the debate. It is understandable why everyone wants to have the last word, but only one side can, and we should understand why the contender should always get the last word.

It is a big deal, and I like getting the last word, but that's not always appropriate. If I'm arguing the problem of evil, I have to go first, because I'm the one making the argument to be refuted.

I wish that I could be the contender in all my debates (so that I could always have the last word) but that's just not the way it is. By instigating a debate, I take it upon myself to decide what topic will be debated and the parameters of the debate. If I am the instigator of the debate, it only seems fair that I instigate the arguments as well. I already have the upper hand by choosing the topic. I should not have the additional advantage of arguing last.

That doesn't work. When I want to refute the without-god-there-can-be-no-objective-morality argument, I can't go first even if I'm the initiator. If I went first, I'd have to make up my opponent's argument for him in order that I could refute it. The better I did that, the more of a waste time it would be. If I do a good job of refuting the argument I make on behalf of my opponent, she'll just say, "That wasn't my argument. Here's my argument," and make a different case.

I'll have wasted my first round.

Asking your opponent to make his first argument in round one for example (while you simply lay out the specifics of what the debate is about) and then asking him to not make an argument for the last round shows both a lack of debater etiquette and debater integrity on the part of the instigator.

No, there's no etiquette problem. And you just made up the integrity thing. There was no reason for you to say that.

Now, imagine someone wanting to debate you on that issue, someone who instigates that debate. Should she initiate the debate and go first, even though you haven't said why she has no integrity? Or should she wait to refute your argument until you have made your argument?
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am the instigator in this debate, so I'd like to comment.

The reason Pro begins in R1, and then does not argue in R5 is simply because he has the BoP, as stated in my first round. It makes no sense for me to argue first, because I have nothing to argue until he makes his case.

It really is quite simple: When the instigator does not have the BoP, it is logical that the contender argues first.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 4:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with the OP that the instigator should argue first. MagicR says that since he doesn't have the BOP, he is arguing last. The point I want to make is that instigators must either take the BOP or share it. Throwing the BOP on the contender as well as choosing the topic and having the last word is a very big unfair advantage. Debaters are free to post such debates but most contenders will not want to take such a challenge nor should they unless they are up for a challenge biased against them.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:17:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 4:57:28 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree with the OP that the instigator should argue first. MagicR says that since he doesn't have the BOP, he is arguing last. The point I want to make is that instigators must either take the BOP or share it. Throwing the BOP on the contender as well as choosing the topic and having the last word is a very big unfair advantage. Debaters are free to post such debates but most contenders will not want to take such a challenge nor should they unless they are up for a challenge biased against them.

As a proponent of the logical problem of evil, it's only fair that I have the burden of proof. I am absolutely proving that a particular type of god does not exist. There's no probably to it.

If you want to instigate an argument with me on that topic, it makes sense to overtly assign me the burden of proof, and to let me argue first. So then, naturally, you get to go last. That's fair. Nothing wrong with it.

Suppose I see a debate on offer (Resolved: Atheists Have no Morals) and decide I want to accept that challenge. But, when I try to accept it, I find that Fool on the Hill accepted it before me. So I wait around until the subject comes up again. Three weeks later, somebody issues that challenge, and Fool beats me to it once again. Why should I wait longer? What is the point of waiting for someone else to issue the challenge when I can issue it myself?

But, if I issue the challenge myself, I can hardly go Pro and argue first. I don't know how morality works. I don't want to invent a system of moral thought, and base an argument on that system, only to have my opponent dismiss it out of hand and make her own argument that has nothing to do with mine. No, I want her to state her argument first so that I can point out where it contradicts itself. She has to go first. I have to refute. And there's no reason I shouldn't explicitly assign her the burden of proof. If she doesn't want the burden of proof, then we can negotiate that. But many theists are happy to have the burden on this issue. They are as sure of themselves here as I am on the PoE.

I often complain about instigators who are Con. But that complaint is based on clarity, not fairness. If you're sharing the burden of proof, and if your issue is one that either side could go first on, then I recommend that the instigator be Pro and go first.

But there's no hard and fast rule, there's no obligation, there's no inherent injustice or poor character involved in instigating as Con.
CriticalThinkingMachine
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 12:27:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Response to illegalcombatant, magicr, and wiploc:

Fighting Falcon pretty much took the words out of my mouth. It's nice to find someone else who likes to think critically.

Those who have criticized my post are substituting one problem for another. It is unfair for debaters to instigate debates if they do not at least share the burden of proof. Avoiding burden of proof, picking the topic, and having the last word seems like an awfully big advantage. Contenders would do well to avoid such traps.

It is unfair for a theist to instigate a debate about the problem of evil, where the contender had to go first, just as it is unfair for atheists to instigate debates where they argue only for weak atheism (as opposed to strong atheism.)

Also, in many debates, perhaps especially debates about God, the arguments on both sides are well known and I do not have to wait for my opponent to make them. For example, if I instigated a debate about the problem of evil where I was the theist and so did not have the burden of proof, I could still argue first because, unless I have been living under a rock for my entire life, I should be aware of the different formulations of the problem of evil, and I could criticize them before they are presented. I wouldn't be "making up" the arguments. Not having the burden of proof is no excuse to not argue first. It would also show a significant lack of imagination and anticipation on the part of the instigator. In my first debate, I anticipated about 90% of what my opponent would say before he even said it. Even though he had the burden of proof and argued first, I could have easily argued first, because I have enough sense to know what arguments have been and are likely to be advanced to support his resolution.

I have clearly explained why debaters who try to instigate but also argue last lack debater etiquette and integrity (it is unnecessary regardless of who has the BOP and provides an unfair advantage to the instigator), so the comments that I "have no sufficient justification for it" and that I "just made it up" are not sufficiently justified and are made up.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 1:09:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 12:27:03 AM, CriticalThinkingMachine wrote:
Those who have criticized my post are substituting one problem for another. It is unfair for debaters to instigate debates if they do not at least share the burden of proof. Avoiding burden of proof, picking the topic, and having the last word seems like an awfully big advantage. Contenders would do well to avoid such traps.

Sometimes, when someone makes a provocative statement, I ask if they want to debate that. Sometimes they say yes. Sometimes I prod them to set up the debate, figuring that they made the outrageous statement, and they should go first, repeating the statement, justifying the statement, and shouldering the burden of proof.

No problem with etiquette or integrity so far, right?

Twice, I waited for a few days, and then exchanged messages prodding them to start the debate, and finally set it up for them.

I don't see any problem with etiquette or integrity even then. I helped my opponent set up the debate. They made the statement provoking the debate. They agreed to debate that topic. All I did is set up the debate for them.

It is unfair for a theist to instigate a debate about the problem of evil, where the contender had to go first,

What's unfair about that? I want to go first. I want the burden of proof. How is it unfair or unethical or poor etiquette for somebody to set up a debate for me, and ask if I want to partake?

just as it is unfair for atheists to instigate debates where they argue only for weak atheism (as opposed to strong atheism.)

Weak atheism is good. Why shouldn't I instigate a debate on that topic?

Also, in many debates, perhaps especially debates about God, the arguments on both sides are well known and I do not have to wait for my opponent to make them. For example, if I instigated a debate about the problem of evil where I was the theist and so did not have the burden of proof, I could still argue first because, unless I have been living under a rock for my entire life, I should be aware of the different formulations of the problem of evil, and I could criticize them before they are presented.

You'd be wasting your first post if you went up against me. If you want to go up against my argument, you'd best let me go first.

I wouldn't be "making up" the arguments. Not having the burden of proof is no excuse to not argue first. It would also show a significant lack of imagination and anticipation on the part of the instigator. In my first debate, I anticipated about 90% of what my opponent would say before he even said it. Even though he had the burden of proof and argued first, I could have easily argued first, because I have enough sense to know what arguments have been and are likely to be advanced to support his resolution.

There's nothing wrong with going first if you want to. But there's no way to parlay that into the conclusion that there's something wrong with going second.

I have clearly explained why debaters who try to instigate but also argue last lack debater etiquette

If you covered etiquette, I missed it.

and integrity

No, there you are just promiscuously smearing people, trolling, flame-baiting.

(it is unnecessary regardless of who has the BOP and provides an unfair advantage to the instigator), so the comments that I "have no sufficient justification for it" and that I "just made it up" are not sufficiently justified and are made up.

You shouldn't accept a debate if you don't like the terms. That doesn't make suckers out of those who do like the terms, and it doesn't make the people who set up the debates rude or unethical.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 1:28:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Challenged.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 1:33:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and in my debate challenge I have issued CTM on this, I am the Con and will not be presenting argument in round 1 and ask that Pro doesn't present argument in the last round...................:D
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:15:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logically speaking, when someone makes a non-agnostic (positive or negative) claim, they have the burden of proof. The instigator is the one making the claim (the resolution). Typically non-agnostic resolutions don't exist. Therefore the instigator pretty much always has the BOP and should argue first.

Positive claim: God exists
Agnostic claim: I don't know if God exists
Negative claim: God doesn't exist
President of DDO
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 3:56:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:15:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
Logically speaking, when someone makes a non-agnostic (positive or negative) claim, they have the burden of proof.

Okay.

The instigator is the one making the claim (the resolution).

Only sometimes. I like to refute other people's claims.

Typically non-agnostic resolutions don't exist.

"God exists," is non-agnostic. "Atheists are immoral," is non-agnostic. "Baptism should be by immersion," is non-agnostic." "God is good." "The moral argument shows that god exists." There's an unending number of non-agnostic resolutions.

Therefore the instigator pretty much always has the BOP and should argue first.

How does that follow?

If I want to argue the agnostic position against "God exists," I instigate the debate, and let someone who wants the affirmative position accept the debate.
CriticalThinkingMachine
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 11:13:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 1:33:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Oh, and in my debate challenge I have issued CTM on this, I am the Con and will not be presenting argument in round 1 and ask that Pro doesn't present argument in the last round...................:D

I have declined illegalcombatant's challenge for obvious reasons. This was the essence of what I posted for my reason for declining the challenge:

In the forums, I have already explained my reason for the belief that debaters who instigate debates but ask their opponents to argue first (while they, the instigators, argue last) are displaying a lack of debater etiquette and integrity when they do so. I have nothing more to say. I also said that debaters would do well to avoid accepting such debates. This debate is such a debate. He instigated it, shares no burden of proof, and wants me to argue first and hence forgo arguing my last round. That's an unfair advantage to him. It would therefore be foolish and hypocritical of me to accept this challenge, and I'm neither a fool nor a hypocrite.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 11:15:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 11:13:03 PM, CriticalThinkingMachine wrote:
At 8/23/2012 1:33:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Oh, and in my debate challenge I have issued CTM on this, I am the Con and will not be presenting argument in round 1 and ask that Pro doesn't present argument in the last round...................:D

I have declined illegalcombatant's challenge for obvious reasons. This was the essence of what I posted for my reason for declining the challenge:

In the forums, I have already explained my reason for the belief that debaters who instigate debates but ask their opponents to argue first (while they, the instigators, argue last) are displaying a lack of debater etiquette and integrity when they do so. I have nothing more to say. I also said that debaters would do well to avoid accepting such debates. This debate is such a debate. He instigated it, shares no burden of proof, and wants me to argue first and hence forgo arguing my last round. That's an unfair advantage to him. It would therefore be foolish and hypocritical of me to accept this challenge, and I'm neither a fool nor a hypocrite.

Okey then you create the debate as the Pro and send me the challenge.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
CriticalThinkingMachine
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 1:38:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Okey then you create the debate as the Pro and send me the challenge."

I quote myself: "I have nothing more to say."

I already instigated a debate in which I made my complaints about this site the subject of the debate. My opponent, despite the fact that he was my opponent, expressed sympathy towards me and suggested that I take my concerns to the forums. So I did, and now, after taking my concerns to the forums, I have you asking me to take my concerns to the debates. I can't win! I'm tired of the circularity. I've said what I needed to say. From now on any complaints I have concerning debate.org (whether they be about actions of the creators of the site, actions of site members, or whatever) will be posted in the forums.

The beauty of being instigator is that you are essentially in the driver's seat in regards to topic. If an instigator instigates a topic that the contender chooses, then the whole efffect is lost. I'd be basically contending to be instigator. Asking a debater to instigate a debate on a topic that the future contender has chosen is simply another way to manipulate traditional debate rules, and I will not be part of it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 2:17:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 1:38:44 AM, CriticalThinkingMachine wrote:
"Okey then you create the debate as the Pro and send me the challenge."

I quote myself: "I have nothing more to say."

I already instigated a debate in which I made my complaints about this site the subject of the debate. My opponent, despite the fact that he was my opponent, expressed sympathy towards me and suggested that I take my concerns to the forums. So I did, and now, after taking my concerns to the forums, I have you asking me to take my concerns to the debates. I can't win! I'm tired of the circularity. I've said what I needed to say. From now on any complaints I have concerning debate.org (whether they be about actions of the creators of the site, actions of site members, or whatever) will be posted in the forums.

The beauty of being instigator is that you are essentially in the driver's seat in regards to topic. If an instigator instigates a topic that the contender chooses, then the whole efffect is lost. I'd be basically contending to be instigator. Asking a debater to instigate a debate on a topic that the future contender has chosen is simply another way to manipulate traditional debate rules, and I will not be part of it.

No, my objection was to YOUR CLAIM of the lack of intellectual integrity. If you had said well I think it should be preferred that the instigator should..........I would of left it there, but you went one step further.

So tell me this then CTM, if some one claims on this site or life "XYZ" but adopts your position here how do we challenge such a person to a debate on THEIR CLAIMS ?

If you instigate the debate and say back it up, they object, no, no ,no, I won't debate by going first as contender.

If you say, ok, you instigate the debate they claim, no no no, that just like being a contender.

Yeah what does one do here ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 5:47:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 3:56:47 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:15:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
Logically speaking, when someone makes a non-agnostic (positive or negative) claim, they have the burden of proof.

Okay.

The instigator is the one making the claim (the resolution).

Only sometimes. I like to refute other people's claims.

No. Every time. The instigator is starting the debate. They create a resolution. The resolution is a claim. Ergo, the instigator is making a positive or negative claim. They have the BOP to defend it.

Typically non-agnostic resolutions don't exist.

"God exists," is non-agnostic. "Atheists are immoral," is non-agnostic. "Baptism should be by immersion," is non-agnostic." "God is good." "The moral argument shows that god exists." There's an unending number of non-agnostic resolutions.

Obviously.

Therefore the instigator pretty much always has the BOP and should argue first.

How does that follow?

What do you mean how does it follow? If you're making a claim, you have the burden to prove that claim. That's how philosophy works. I'm not making this up-- this isn't based on my opinion. You can Google "burden of proof" and it will tell you the same thing.

If I want to argue the agnostic position against "God exists," I instigate the debate, and let someone who wants the affirmative position accept the debate.

First of all, "God exists" is not an agnostic position. It is an affirmative position. It's making the positive claim that God exists. Second, by claiming "God Exists" in the resolution and choosing Con, that is the exact same thing as saying you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist. You're instigating the debate. You're challenging the debate. If you're aiming to prove God doesn't exist (which is a negative claim), you still have the burden even if you're Con. Saying Pro should argue first is cheap. All you're doing there is shifting the burden which is cowardly not to mention improper. Why not create a resolution "God doesn't exist" and argue as Pro? That keeps it simple with Pro arguing first. Trying to find ways around it just proves someone feels the need to rely on the crutch of having the last word, which btw is helpful but certainly not the be-all of a debate.
President of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 5:53:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 5:47:45 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 3:56:47 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:15:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
Logically speaking, when someone makes a non-agnostic (positive or negative) claim, they have the burden of proof.

Okay.

The instigator is the one making the claim (the resolution).

Only sometimes. I like to refute other people's claims.

No. Every time. The instigator is starting the debate. They create a resolution. The resolution is a claim. Ergo, the instigator is making a positive or negative claim. They have the BOP to defend it.

Agreed, if you affirm the resolution, you are making a claim. If you dispute the resolution, then you're holding the Burden of Rejoiner. Simples.


Typically non-agnostic resolutions don't exist.

"God exists," is non-agnostic. "Atheists are immoral," is non-agnostic. "Baptism should be by immersion," is non-agnostic." "God is good." "The moral argument shows that god exists." There's an unending number of non-agnostic resolutions.

Obviously.

Therefore the instigator pretty much always has the BOP and should argue first.

How does that follow?

What do you mean how does it follow? If you're making a claim, you have the burden to prove that claim. That's how philosophy works. I'm not making this up-- this isn't based on my opinion. You can Google "burden of proof" and it will tell you the same thing.

If I want to argue the agnostic position against "God exists," I instigate the debate, and let someone who wants the affirmative position accept the debate.

First of all, "God exists" is not an agnostic position. It is an affirmative position. It's making the positive claim that God exists. Second, by claiming "God Exists" in the resolution and choosing Con, that is the exact same thing as saying you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist. You're instigating the debate. You're challenging the debate. If you're aiming to prove God doesn't exist (which is a negative claim), you still have the burden even if you're Con. Saying Pro should argue first is cheap. All you're doing there is shifting the burden which is cowardly not to mention improper. Why not create a resolution "God doesn't exist" and argue as Pro? That keeps it simple with Pro arguing first. Trying to find ways around it just proves someone feels the need to rely on the crutch of having the last word, which btw is helpful but certainly not the be-all of a debate.

I think this all comes from not knowing the burden of rejoiner. Someone claiming a syllogism is false cannot have the burden of proof, because they aren't saying the OP or OA is true. They have the Burden of rejoiner, because they are saying that the OP or OA is false.

http://sdiencyclopedia.wikispaces.com... (definition)

http://books.google.co.uk... (burden of rejoinder is always on the defendent, i.e. who is not making the claim of guilt. BoP is always on the plaintiffs)

http://tinyurl.com... (Burden of Rejoinder is always on the negator of the resolution)
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
8/24/2012 10:10:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 5:47:45 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 3:56:47 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:15:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
Logically speaking, when someone makes a non-agnostic (positive or negative) claim, they have the burden of proof.

Okay.

The instigator is the one making the claim (the resolution).

Only sometimes. I like to refute other people's claims.

No. Every time. The instigator is starting the debate. They create a resolution. The resolution is a claim. Ergo, the instigator is making a positive or negative claim. They have the BOP to defend it.

The instigator can state a positive claim for someone else to defend. I can say, "Resolved: God exists," and let someone else defend that if I am agnostic on the issue.

Typically non-agnostic resolutions don't exist.

"God exists," is non-agnostic. "Atheists are immoral," is non-agnostic. "Baptism should be by immersion," is non-agnostic." "God is good." "The moral argument shows that god exists." There's an unending number of non-agnostic resolutions.

Obviously.

So you misspoke. You said that non-agnostic resolutions do not (typically) exist, and now you say that they obviously do.

Therefore the instigator pretty much always has the BOP and should argue first.

How does that follow?

What do you mean how does it follow?

Well, it didn't seem to follow from your patently false claim that non-agnostic resolutions don't typically exist. I don't see that it follows from anything else you said either.

Suppose we wanted to turn this discussion into a debate. You could instigate, using the resolution "Resolved: Instigators Should Always Go First," and be Pro. Or I could instigate, using the same resolution, and be Con. There's no difference. You would have the burden of proof either way, because you are affirming the non-agnostic resolution.

Same parties arguing the same positions, same burden of proof, it makes no difference who does the instigating.

Okay, that was an overstatement. It makes some difference. But the only difference I see is that --- as I read the debate --- I have more trouble keeping the players straight if the instigator is Con. But that can be easily dealt with: the parties can remind me of who is whom by saying "Vote Con" and "Vote Pro" at the end of their posts.

(The ones I really hate are those where the resolution is phrased negatively, and Con argues first. Why resolve that "It is not true that X is true," and have Con argue first when the resolution could be "X is true," and the same person could go first as Pro? That confuses readers, with no compensating upside.)

If you're making a claim, you have the burden to prove that claim.

Absolutely.

That's how philosophy works. I'm not making this up-- this isn't based on my opinion. You can Google "burden of proof" and it will tell you the same thing.

The party who affirms the resolution should be Pro, and should have the burden of proof. We're not disagreeing on this. I just don't see what it has to do with who sets up the debate.

If I want to argue the agnostic position against "God exists," I instigate the debate, and let someone who wants the affirmative position accept the debate.

First of all, "God exists" is not an agnostic position.

Right. I said I want to argue against that position. That is, I want someone to claim that god exists, and defend that position, so that I can take the agnostic position ("Unless you meet your burden of proof, it is not clear that god exists") against it.

It is an affirmative position.

Yes, that's clear. I want someone else to take that affirmative position so that I can point out that the attempt to meet the burden of proof was really just equivocation and sleight of mouth.

It's making the positive claim that God exists.

Yes, and I don't believe that claim can be defended. So I want someone else to go Pro on that issue, so that I can point out where she dissembled.

Second, by claiming "God Exists" in the resolution and choosing Con, that is the exact same thing as saying you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

Finally we have a disagreement. "God does not exist" is the opposite of "God exists." If the resolution is "God exists," then Con's position needn't be anything more than that Pro hasn't met her burden of proof. Con need not claim that god doesn't exist. Con can take the agnostic position.

You're instigating the debate. You're challenging the debate. If you're aiming to prove God doesn't exist (which is a negative claim), you still have the burden even if you're Con.

Agreed.

Saying Pro should argue first is cheap.

Isn't it your position that Pro should instigate and argue first? And anyway, how is saying that Pro should argue first cheaper than saying the instigator should argue first?

All you're doing there is shifting the burden which is cowardly not to mention improper.

I don't understand where the hostility is coming from.

Sometimes debates are facilitated by having Con instigate. It's a way of getting the debate started. I could start a "God Exists" debate, and take Con without doing anyone any unfairness. Pro would argue first the same as if she had instigated. She would have the burden of proof the same as if she had instigated. The only difference is that I set up the debate by way of inviting her to make her case.

No harm done. I'm facilitating.

If there'd be no harm done for her to set up the debate with herself as Pro and herself having the burden of proof and herself arguing first, then there's no harm done if I set up the debate the same way.

Why not create a resolution "God doesn't exist" and argue as Pro?

Because Con would dismiss my first post, saying, "Nothing that you said in your OP was relevant to my god. And my god does exist. Here's my case." And the real debate would start from that moment, with me having wasted my first post, and "Con" effectively getting to go both first and last.

That keeps it simple with Pro arguing first. Trying to find ways around it just proves someone feels the need to rely on the crutch of having the last word, which btw is helpful but certainly not the be-all of a debate.

On the problem of evil, I have to be Pro, regardless of who instigates. I'm the affirmative; I'm making the positive claim; I have to be Pro, have the burden of proof, and argue first. None of that changes based on who instigates.

On "God Exists," my opponent has to be Pro and argue first and have the burden. I have nothing to say if I go first, because I don't know what cockamamie argument the non-agnostic proponent of god's existence is going to field. I have to wait to read that argument before I can respond to it. So, regardless of who instigates, I'm going to be Con, and argue last, and not have the burden of proof.