Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

How to judge a debate

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 11:56:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How should I judge the following case.

Debater #1 posted the ontological argument.
I personaly do not find this argument convincing.
On the other hand, his opponent seemingly does not understand the argument at all and did not refute it proporly.

Do I give credit to debater #1 or not.

2 other unrelated points on voting:

one the 3 points for most convincing argument should be dividable.

two the section for "most reliable sources" should not have it's own section, but rather be included in "most convincing argument"

OPINIONS:
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 11:56:34 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
How should I judge the following case.

Debater #1 posted the ontological argument.
I personaly do not find this argument convincing.
On the other hand, his opponent seemingly does not understand the argument at all and did not refute it proporly.

Do I give credit to debater #1 or not.

You're asking whether you should judge the debate based on your personal opinion vs. how well they performed? I think the answer is self-evident.


2 other unrelated points on voting:

one the 3 points for most convincing argument should be dividable.

How?

two the section for "most reliable sources" should not have it's own section, but rather be included in "most convincing argument"

OPINIONS:

It should be eliminated entirely. Most abused points there are.
"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)
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:22:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:10:58 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 11:56:34 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
How should I judge the following case.

Debater #1 posted the ontological argument.
I personaly do not find this argument convincing.
On the other hand, his opponent seemingly does not understand the argument at all and did not refute it proporly.

Do I give credit to debater #1 or not.

You're asking whether you should judge the debate based on your personal opinion vs. how well they performed? I think the answer is self-evident.


What I mean is this. I don't find the ontological argument very convincing.
So to me no convincing argument has been made. On the other hand, his oponent didn't understand / address the argument properly.

2 other unrelated points on voting:

one the 3 points for most convincing argument should be dividable.

How?

Simple if one was only slightly more convincing give him 2 and the other 1 or 0

two the section for "most reliable sources" should not have it's own section, but rather be included in "most convincing argument"

OPINIONS:

It should be eliminated entirely. Most abused points there are.

Can we make a petition on this?
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 1:22:48 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:10:58 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 11:56:34 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
How should I judge the following case.

Debater #1 posted the ontological argument.
I personaly do not find this argument convincing.
On the other hand, his opponent seemingly does not understand the argument at all and did not refute it proporly.

Do I give credit to debater #1 or not.

You're asking whether you should judge the debate based on your personal opinion vs. how well they performed? I think the answer is self-evident.


What I mean is this. I don't find the ontological argument very convincing.
So to me no convincing argument has been made. On the other hand, his oponent didn't understand / address the argument properly.

Oh I see. It's up to your discretion I guess. I often leave it tied if I'm not satisfied with either side but if one was significantly less satisfying than the other, I might give points. But if you dislike the argument for things otherwise mentioned in the debate you should maybe give it to him. It's unconvincing to you but what really matters is how well the two sides did in comparison to eachother.

2 other unrelated points on voting:

one the 3 points for most convincing argument should be dividable.

How?

Simple if one was only slightly more convincing give him 2 and the other 1 or 0

Meh, you can do that with the current system if you want. Cliffstamp did it all the time. Just give conduct point if you felt it was really close. I wouldn't like it since bias and poor voters would abuse it so much.

two the section for "most reliable sources" should not have it's own section, but rather be included in "most convincing argument"

OPINIONS:

It should be eliminated entirely. Most abused points there are.

Can we make a petition on this?

Go ahead.
"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)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:14:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From what you have said, if the ontological argument was not refuted, then it stands.

In general, Pro must make a prima facie case. The case must be good enough to stand on it's own even if there is no opponent. If it is nonsensical or is self-contradictory, then it fails. The ontological argument might fail on those grounds if it is poorly presented.

A couple times I've seen Pro cases so rambling that the did not actually apply to the resolution. when that happens, it loses both arguments and conduct. It's a conduct violation for not addressing the resolution.

The reason for giving sources points and a separate category has to do with written debate as distinct from verbal debate. Written debate ought to have much higher standards for sources because there is time to research them on the spot. Unlike academic debating, DDO debates do not pound on the same topic for months -- well, except for a few recurring topics. Hence, a significant part of DDO debates is the ability to find and cite sources.

There is a lot of discretion in DDO judging, and especially how much of your own knowledge you should bring to the debate. For example, there have been debates on whether 0.999... = 1. The proof is x = .999...; 10x = 9.999...; 9x = 9; x = 1. If you have had a math course that covered the subject, you know the proof is correct. But if you haven't had the course, you might wonder if that is really a good proof. Should you use your prior knowledge to know that the proof offered is correct? I think so, but others would say not. It happens that someone makes several invalid arguments, but one good one. I think the true argument carries; others would score the contentions d find more false than true.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 11:21:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:10:58 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 11:56:34 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
two the section for "most reliable sources" should not have it's own section, but rather be included in "most convincing argument"


It should be eliminated entirely. Most abused points there are.

It would be less abused if we added a hyphen. Thus, "Who used the most reliable sources?" should be changed to "Who used the most-reliable sources?" That would reduce the number of people who vote for whoever has the most citations.

We could also change "Who made more convincing arguments?" to "Who made more-convincing arguments?"

For that matter, we could rearrange the words, thus:

"Who made more convincing arguments?" could be "Whose arguments were more convincing?" and "Who used the most reliable sources?" could be "Whose sources were more reliable?"

Better yet (though the above changes should be made regardless) the number of source points could be made adjustible. That is, when we are setting up the debate, and choosing the maximum number of characters per post, and the amount of time for voting, we could also be allowed to choose whether sources get 2 points, 2 point, or no points. I'd almost always choose no points, because my debates are almost always about logic rather than research.