Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How I Judge Debates

YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have been countered three times in the past 24 hours. To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened before and I think it's time to have a public discussion about how I judge debates.

I am going to begin by offering a theoretical framework, the paradigm from which I begin and then I'll address how that applies to the categories from which DDO awards points: conduct, arguments, grammar and sources.

To start: unless otherwise stated it is the solemn responsibility of PRO to prove the claim articulated in the resolution. This means that PRO must offer a logically coherent case that affirms the resolution, and does so in a way that both accurately applies facts to contentions and uses contentions to support their argument. This works better if the argument is clearly syllogistically structured, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Here's what I'm talking about, in the most fantastically simple way I can state it:

Statement of a Rule: If A then B.
Statement of facts: A
Application of Facts to Rule: B

Granted, I haven't always written debates this way and I usually don't if my opponent doesn't and I accept a challenge. But if I initiate -see the Definitions of Democracy debate- syllogisms are a consistently reliable structure to follow. Moreover, this is a structure that enables a debater to isolate concepts and in doing so avoid making bold, ungrounded, or just downright idiotic assumptions. There are MANY debaters on this site who need not abide within this structure because they are GOOD at understanding how to make logically grounded arguments, but for those who are not, this is a good place to start.

Back to BOP. Unless alternative provisions have been outlined and accepted by both debaters the burden of proof lies with he who asserts the validity of the claim. Ergo, it is the responsibility of PRO to make the case and the responsibility of CON to negate the case. That means that wether CON validly attacks PRO or not, if PRO's arguments are insufficient to prove the resolution, his argument fails on its own merit. This means that CON, whose only responsibility was not to have PRO prove his claim, must take points even where it is the case that con forfeits. This is a controversial idea that I will explain in more depth regarding Conduct.

Conduct:

A forfeiture of a single round or multiple rounds, unless otherwise stated by debaters, is not an implicit loss. A forfeiture is only a loss where, as similarly described above, both debaters agree that this is a rule that they wish to invoke for their given debate. It is not a rule that is universally applicable to all debates. How can this be the case?

If an argument is insufficient even to stand on it's own, where the BOP is on PRO to prove his claim, where he fails to do that, wether CON had anything to do with that failure or not, CON takes argument points because of the fact that PRO failed to prove his claim. The metric DDO invokes is "convincing." Here's where it get's subjective. If you are "convinced" by assumptions or logical fallacy, that's ok. Why? Because it's a subjective metric which places the onus on the evaluator's amenability to be persuaded. Where it is rather the case that another is unpersuaded by poor, contradictory, stupid, weak or otherwise woefully awful arguments, if the arguments are insufficient to justify the conclusion, because that is what is convincing to me, I will not award pro the win. Why? Laziness from CON does not eclipse weak argumentation from PRO.

That said, if CON forfeits a round, I will almost always give PRO the conduct point because to forfeit a round is impolite at once to the debate to be had and the debater with which one engages. However, a forfeiture is a CONDUCT violation, NOT -unless otherwise stated by both debaters- something to be regarded as a concession. Granted, it is VERY common for debaters to stipulate to conditions which regard forfeitures as automatic losses. That is fine if and only if both debaters stipulate to that condition before the start of the debate. It is not appropriate for a judge to substitute the metric of argumentation described by the ballot of DDO for their own misapplication of a common practice.

Arguments:

Arguments from PRO must prove the resolution -unless debaters stipulate to a split BOP- for pro to take the points for arguments. If they fail to do that either by their own insufficiency or by the efforts of Con, then they have lost and CON must be awarded points.

In the case of a split BOP, both debaters enjoy equal responsibility as follows.

If the resolution is "A" then Pro must prove "A" and Con must prove "~A." (not A).

This means that while pro must affirm the resolution, Con must do more than simply undermine Pro's attempt's to prove the resolution. Rather, Con must argue for the opposite of the resolution, that is the logical negation of the resolution. This is a heavier burden on CON than otherwise leveraged upon him, where the BOP is not split. However, proving ~A is sufficient to overcome proving A and where the BOP is not split this means that by proving ~A Con wins in consequence.

Grammar:

Unless there is a noticeable difference, I usually leave this unchecked.

Sources:

I have a background in a whole lot of things. Philosophy of various kinds (though primarily political philosophy), political science, US and European Law, International Law and International relations, Economics various other social sciences as well as a few humanities. That said, if you're full of sh!t I'm not going to let it slide. For example, the misapplication of a source (especially one I'm really familiar with) will cost a debater the source point. I do this not to reward the other debater, but to indicate that the aforementioned debater in error is undeserving of source neutrality. Why? Source neutrality implies the equal use of sources. If one debater uses sources well or at least not incorrectly, and another fails to do so, the use of sources is not equal and therefore points must be allocated accordingly.

And Now:

I mention frequently how bad some of the ballots I see on DDO are. This isn't really fair of me because the VAST majority of the ones I see are pretty good. That said, the ones that are bad are often dreadful and that comes at the expense of the legitimacy of the exercise of voting itself. Voters of all calibers have the responsibility to for themselves allocate the same degree of interest and resolution to judging the debate that both debaters put into the debate. To do otherwise is not only discourteous, it's insulting to the integrity of the site, the ratings of debaters which are influenced by those votes and the voter himself.

Moreover, this means being willing to stand by your decision and explain it or admit when you are wrong or made a mistake. I am not perfect. I miss things and I have changed my mind on several occasions because things I missed have been pointed out to me either directly or indirectly. That said, if you as a voter make a mistake you OWE it to both debaters to change your ballot rather than like an obstinate j@ckass defend your own nonsense.

With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Surely, this will raise the eye brows of a few.
Tsar of DDO
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 10:24:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM, YYW wrote:
I have been countered three times in the past 24 hours. To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened before and I think it's time to have a public discussion about how I judge debates.

I am going to begin by offering a theoretical framework, the paradigm from which I begin and then I'll address how that applies to the categories from which DDO awards points: conduct, arguments, grammar and sources.

To start: unless otherwise stated it is the solemn responsibility of PRO to prove the claim articulated in the resolution. This means that PRO must offer a logically coherent case that affirms the resolution, and does so in a way that both accurately applies facts to contentions and uses contentions to support their argument. This works better if the argument is clearly syllogistically structured, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Here's what I'm talking about, in the most fantastically simple way I can state it:

Statement of a Rule: If A then B.
Statement of facts: A
Application of Facts to Rule: B

Granted, I haven't always written debates this way and I usually don't if my opponent doesn't and I accept a challenge. But if I initiate -see the Definitions of Democracy debate- syllogisms are a consistently reliable structure to follow. Moreover, this is a structure that enables a debater to isolate concepts and in doing so avoid making bold, ungrounded, or just downright idiotic assumptions. There are MANY debaters on this site who need not abide within this structure because they are GOOD at understanding how to make logically grounded arguments, but for those who are not, this is a good place to start.

Back to BOP. Unless alternative provisions have been outlined and accepted by both debaters the burden of proof lies with he who asserts the validity of the claim. Ergo, it is the responsibility of PRO to make the case and the responsibility of CON to negate the case. That means that wether CON validly attacks PRO or not, if PRO's arguments are insufficient to prove the resolution, his argument fails on its own merit. This means that CON, whose only responsibility was not to have PRO prove his claim, must take points even where it is the case that con forfeits. This is a controversial idea that I will explain in more depth regarding Conduct.

Conduct:

A forfeiture of a single round or multiple rounds, unless otherwise stated by debaters, is not an implicit loss. A forfeiture is only a loss where, as similarly described above, both debaters agree that this is a rule that they wish to invoke for their given debate. It is not a rule that is universally applicable to all debates. How can this be the case?

If an argument is insufficient even to stand on it's own, where the BOP is on PRO to prove his claim, where he fails to do that, wether CON had anything to do with that failure or not, CON takes argument points because of the fact that PRO failed to prove his claim. The metric DDO invokes is "convincing." Here's where it get's subjective. If you are "convinced" by assumptions or logical fallacy, that's ok. Why? Because it's a subjective metric which places the onus on the evaluator's amenability to be persuaded. Where it is rather the case that another is unpersuaded by poor, contradictory, stupid, weak or otherwise woefully awful arguments, if the arguments are insufficient to justify the conclusion, because that is what is convincing to me, I will not award pro the win. Why? Laziness from CON does not eclipse weak argumentation from PRO.

That said, if CON forfeits a round, I will almost always give PRO the conduct point because to forfeit a round is impolite at once to the debate to be had and the debater with which one engages. However, a forfeiture is a CONDUCT violation, NOT -unless otherwise stated by both debaters- something to be regarded as a concession. Granted, it is VERY common for debaters to stipulate to conditions which regard forfeitures as automatic losses. That is fine if and only if both debaters stipulate to that condition before the start of the debate. It is not appropriate for a judge to substitute the metric of argumentation described by the ballot of DDO for their own misapplication of a common practice.

Arguments:

Arguments from PRO must prove the resolution -unless debaters stipulate to a split BOP- for pro to take the points for arguments. If they fail to do that either by their own insufficiency or by the efforts of Con, then they have lost and CON must be awarded points.

In the case of a split BOP, both debaters enjoy equal responsibility as follows.

If the resolution is "A" then Pro must prove "A" and Con must prove "~A." (not A).

This means that while pro must affirm the resolution, Con must do more than simply undermine Pro's attempt's to prove the resolution. Rather, Con must argue for the opposite of the resolution, that is the logical negation of the resolution. This is a heavier burden on CON than otherwise leveraged upon him, where the BOP is not split. However, proving ~A is sufficient to overcome proving A and where the BOP is not split this means that by proving ~A Con wins in consequence.

Grammar:

Unless there is a noticeable difference, I usually leave this unchecked.

Sources:

I have a background in a whole lot of things. Philosophy of various kinds (though primarily political philosophy), political science, US and European Law, International Law and International relations, Economics various other social sciences as well as a few humanities. That said, if you're full of sh!t I'm not going to let it slide. For example, the misapplication of a source (especially one I'm really familiar with) will cost a debater the source point. I do this not to reward the other debater, but to indicate that the aforementioned debater in error is undeserving of source neutrality. Why? Source neutrality implies the equal use of sources. If one debater uses sources well or at least not incorrectly, and another fails to do so, the use of sources is not equal and therefore points must be allocated accordingly.

And Now:

I mention frequently how bad some of the ballots I see on DDO are. This isn't really fair of me because the VAST majority of the ones I see are pretty good. That said, the ones that are bad are often dreadful and that comes at the expense of the legitimacy of the exercise of voting itself. Voters of all calibers have the responsibility to for themselves allocate the same degree of interest and resolution to judging the debate that both debaters put into the debate. To do otherwise is not only discourteous, it's insulting to the integrity of the site, the ratings of debaters which are influenced by those votes and the voter himself.

Moreover, this means being willing to stand by your decision and explain it or admit when you are wrong or made a mistake. I am not perfect. I miss things and I have changed my mind on several occasions because things I missed have been pointed out to me either directly or indirectly. That said, if you as a voter make a mistake you OWE it to both debaters to change your ballot rather than like an obstinate j@ckass defend your own nonsense.

With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Surely, this will raise the eye brows of a few.

Fair enough, "Goes to YYW's profile" "clicks on Votes made" "CVB all active voting period debates"
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 10:41:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really like this post and the explanation. I felt it was very thoughtful. Although (you'll probably disagree), I judge debates very differently. Assuming you wanted differing opinions, here's how I would do it:

I like your syllogism at the beginning. I never thought about it that way but it is something I want to consider in future debates and votes.

Arguments:

Unless mentioned, I assume a split BOP. This might not be a formal way of doing it or match up with judges in high school debates do. However, it is important to keep in mind that the voter isn't judging a high school debate but rather an online debate where two members present their views on opposing matters. Whoever convinces me that their side is more likely to happen, more beneficial, should happen, or is right gets the points for arguments. I go with a preponderance of evidence, i.e. which case is stronger on average after weighting the arguments. When Con presents a much poorer case than Pro, it isn't fair to award him arguments just because Pro failed to "uphold his BOP." I compare the arguments side-by-side to see which arguments are stronger. In most cases, it is simply the case that one side debated better than the other and that side gets my vote. Note that I disregard this when the BOP has been explicitly stated in the debate in round 1.

As for the arguments themselves, I make sure to weigh in each point (in most recent debates, I've been flowing the points to see which ones stand), and compare the arguments that weren't adequately refuted and weigh their impacts as stated by the debaters. Some points are worth more than others simply because their impacts are either larger, more direct, or more likely. Other points are mentioned by the debaters as mere afterthoughts. These points aren't weighed in as heavily. The person with the overall stronger points as pertaining to proving or disproving the resolution wins. I know some judges disagree but the important thing to make note of here is that most high school debates have specific formats like LD, policy, public forum, etc. The debates on DDO (unless mentioned in round 1) fall into none of those categories and are simply a measure of who can post more convincing arguments for or against the resolution (again assuming no mention of BOP or debate style in round 1). I find it appropriate in this environment to vote for the better debater as opposed to vote on technicality.

Conduct:

Forfeits are an automatic loss of conduct. If I bother to actually read a forfeited debate, then I will award arguments as usual to whoever made the most convincing arguments and I'll explain why. A forfeit of multiple rounds usually mean a forfeit of the arguments point as well provided the non-forfeiter presents an argument and rebuts the forfeiters arguments if any. If he just says "extend," then he merely gets conduct.

Other reasons for loss in conduct is violating rules agreed upon in Round 1, using unrealistic interpretations of words to gain an easy victory (in other words - semantics), posting new arguments in the last round, posting arguments in the comments section and using swearwords or other attacks.

A interesting (and stupid) trend I've seen from some voters is to award conduct points to a debater who has conceded or excused himself from the debate due to lack of time. The usual reason would be "Con conceded as opposed to forfeiting" or "Con was nice enough to inform Pro that he is too busy to continue." This is stupid for many reasons. There is no reason for Pro to lose conduct because his arguments were so good that his opponent conceded. There is no reason for Pro to lose conduct because his opponent informed him that he couldn't continue the debate. These are Con's errors and there is no reason to give him the conduct point for them. A lack of a forfeit should mean that Con does not lose conduct. A polite message that they can't continue or a concession again means that the conduct point shouldn't be docked - as opposed to forfeit. I've never understood the logic behind giving the conduct point to that debater.

S&G:

Almost always a tie unless one debater has poor presentation, multiple spelling errors, makes the voters read a wall of text or doesn't adequately use the rich text functions to appropriately bold the headings or is otherwise unclear.

Sources:

This is the most interesting of all. I've seen people vote because someone has more sources. I've seen people scathingly argue that a multitude of sources is useless. I disagree with both positions. Some of my debates have upwards of 20 sources in a round. However, I don't expect points for listing out 20+ sources and anyone doing so is doing it wrong.

Sources should be used to support arguments made with data, with proof of your claims, or give expert opinions. Sources shouldn't be used to lift entire points out of as I've seen even top debaters do it. The points should be your own. The sources should back up the data you claim to have.

Types of sources - academic studies are often far more valuable than magazines, blogs, or newspapers. Direct citations of academic studies should be more valuable than secondhand interpretations. The media often blow the results out of proportions. Reports from impartial government agencies are also worth more than second hand biased sources. Debaters who cite original material straight from a study get more points than debaters who link to a news article or blog that references a study.

Another interesting note is that I think the OP places a high value on rhetoric as opposed to sources. It is a great way to have and judge debates. I think backing up your data is extremely important so I am more inclined to consider the sources used. So, be aware that different judges have different metrics. Finally, a large number of sources may be used to support your argument but it really shouldn't affect the sources point positively or negatively. How you used the source as well as the credibility of your source should matter more.
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 11:34:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is how I judge debates:

1) Do I like person in it? If no, I don't even vote.
2) After reading it if I suddenly like them, I vote
3) If I like both of them I vote fairly
4) If I only like one, I vote fairly
5) If I hate one and love one, I vote fairly
6) If I hate both I vote fairly
7) If I feel the debate is stupid, I vote for the clever one.
8) If I feel the debate is ingenious, I vote for the clever one.

LALALALALALA
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 1:34:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Countered 3 times in a day? lol damn. I've voted almost 1,000 times and don't think I've ever been countered or accused of vote bombing. I've also never taken the time to thoughtfully break down my voting standards, though, so maybe I'm missing a potential learning experience.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 2:27:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

To me, it seems like information rather than self-aggrandizement. I disagree with the OP's perspectives but I felt that it was well-thought out and merited discussion of the reader's own methods of judging debates.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:09:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 10:41:49 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I really like this post and the explanation. I felt it was very thoughtful. Although (you'll probably disagree), I judge debates very differently. Assuming you wanted differing opinions, here's how I would do it:

I like your syllogism at the beginning. I never thought about it that way but it is something I want to consider in future debates and votes.

Arguments:

Unless mentioned, I assume a split BOP. This might not be a formal way of doing it or match up with judges in high school debates do. However, it is important to keep in mind that the voter isn't judging a high school debate but rather an online debate where two members present their views on opposing matters. Whoever convinces me that their side is more likely to happen, more beneficial, should happen, or is right gets the points for arguments. I go with a preponderance of evidence, i.e. which case is stronger on average after weighting the arguments. When Con presents a much poorer case than Pro, it isn't fair to award him arguments just because Pro failed to "uphold his BOP." I compare the arguments side-by-side to see which arguments are stronger. In most cases, it is simply the case that one side debated better than the other and that side gets my vote. Note that I disregard this when the BOP has been explicitly stated in the debate in round 1.

As for the arguments themselves, I make sure to weigh in each point (in most recent debates, I've been flowing the points to see which ones stand), and compare the arguments that weren't adequately refuted and weigh their impacts as stated by the debaters. Some points are worth more than others simply because their impacts are either larger, more direct, or more likely. Other points are mentioned by the debaters as mere afterthoughts. These points aren't weighed in as heavily. The person with the overall stronger points as pertaining to proving or disproving the resolution wins. I know some judges disagree but the important thing to make note of here is that most high school debates have specific formats like LD, policy, public forum, etc. The debates on DDO (unless mentioned in round 1) fall into none of those categories and are simply a measure of who can post more convincing arguments for or against the resolution (again assuming no mention of BOP or debate style in round 1). I find it appropriate in this environment to vote for the better debater as opposed to vote on technicality.

Conduct:

Forfeits are an automatic loss of conduct. If I bother to actually read a forfeited debate, then I will award arguments as usual to whoever made the most convincing arguments and I'll explain why. A forfeit of multiple rounds usually mean a forfeit of the arguments point as well provided the non-forfeiter presents an argument and rebuts the forfeiters arguments if any. If he just says "extend," then he merely gets conduct.

Other reasons for loss in conduct is violating rules agreed upon in Round 1, using unrealistic interpretations of words to gain an easy victory (in other words - semantics), posting new arguments in the last round, posting arguments in the comments section and using swearwords or other attacks.

A interesting (and stupid) trend I've seen from some voters is to award conduct points to a debater who has conceded or excused himself from the debate due to lack of time. The usual reason would be "Con conceded as opposed to forfeiting" or "Con was nice enough to inform Pro that he is too busy to continue." This is stupid for many reasons. There is no reason for Pro to lose conduct because his arguments were so good that his opponent conceded. There is no reason for Pro to lose conduct because his opponent informed him that he couldn't continue the debate. These are Con's errors and there is no reason to give him the conduct point for them. A lack of a forfeit should mean that Con does not lose conduct. A polite message that they can't continue or a concession again means that the conduct point shouldn't be docked - as opposed to forfeit. I've never understood the logic behind giving the conduct point to that debater.

S&G:

Almost always a tie unless one debater has poor presentation, multiple spelling errors, makes the voters read a wall of text or doesn't adequately use the rich text functions to appropriately bold the headings or is otherwise unclear.

Sources:

This is the most interesting of all. I've seen people vote because someone has more sources. I've seen people scathingly argue that a multitude of sources is useless. I disagree with both positions. Some of my debates have upwards of 20 sources in a round. However, I don't expect points for listing out 20+ sources and anyone doing so is doing it wrong.

Sources should be used to support arguments made with data, with proof of your claims, or give expert opinions. Sources shouldn't be used to lift entire points out of as I've seen even top debaters do it. The points should be your own. The sources should back up the data you claim to have.

Types of sources - academic studies are often far more valuable than magazines, blogs, or newspapers. Direct citations of academic studies should be more valuable than secondhand interpretations. The media often blow the results out of proportions. Reports from impartial government agencies are also worth more than second hand biased sources. Debaters who cite original material straight from a study get more points than debaters who link to a news article or blog that references a study.

Another interesting note is that I think the OP places a high value on rhetoric as opposed to sources. It is a great way to have and judge debates. I think backing up your data is extremely important so I am more inclined to consider the sources used. So, be aware that different judges have different metrics. Finally, a large number of sources may be used to support your argument but it really shouldn't affect the sources point positively or negatively. How you used the source as well as the credibility of your source should matter more.

I think that's a totally legitimate way to vote and that DDO benefits from the diversity of perspectives.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:19:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

No one forced you to acknowledge it, read it or comment on it. These are decisions you made of your own free will. And this was not self-aggrandizement. It was explanation. Wether you choose to recognize the distinction... well... idgaf.
Tsar of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

It's unfortunate that you seem to miss/ignore the point of this thread, which far outweighs any concerns of its length, 000ike...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:23:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 5:23:07 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

It's unfortunate that you seem to miss/wish to ignore the point of this thread, which far outweighs any concerns of its length, 000ike...

Amended.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:31:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 5:23:21 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/24/2012 5:23:07 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

It's unfortunate that you seem to miss/wish to ignore the point of this thread, which far outweighs any concerns of its length, 000ike...

Amended.

It's cool. I don't expect others to judge like me. I expect them to do their best, but be willing to explain it, which is why I have a high degree of respect for F-16 who both took the time to outline his paradigm and respond to mine accordingly. Icke is a kid, though. F-16 is an adult. The differences are considerable and easily explained.

MouthWash and Heineken are the ones who I took particular issue with. Mouthwash is a kid too, so I'm not too worried -even though it was irritating. Heineken wouldn't explain an RFD when I asked him about it and now thinks this is personal. It's not, and at this point idgaf what he thinks because rather than justify himself he want's to accuse me of being bitter and biased. Whatever. But because I don't want to start a flame war, that's all I'll say on that issue.

The point is that I think people have a right to know where I am coming from, and I don't want a debater to think I would callously vote-bomb his debate. I don't vote bomb. Period.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 8:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 5:19:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

No one forced you to acknowledge it, read it or comment on it. These are decisions you made of your own free will. And this was not self-aggrandizement. It was explanation. Wether you choose to recognize the distinction... well... idgaf.

I can be stupidly cranky sometimes; sorry to upset you.
Also, merry Christmas
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 12:39:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 8:35:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2012 5:19:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

No one forced you to acknowledge it, read it or comment on it. These are decisions you made of your own free will. And this was not self-aggrandizement. It was explanation. Wether you choose to recognize the distinction... well... idgaf.

I can be stupidly cranky sometimes; sorry to upset you.
Also, merry Christmas

No need to apologize, Icke. I hope you have a merry christmas as well.
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 3:47:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM, YYW wrote:
Back to BOP. Unless alternative provisions have been outlined and accepted by both debaters the burden of proof lies with he who asserts the validity of the claim. Ergo, it is the responsibility of PRO to make the case and the responsibility of CON to negate the case. That means that wether CON validly attacks PRO or not, if PRO's arguments are insufficient to prove the resolution, his argument fails on its own merit. This means that CON, whose only responsibility was not to have PRO prove his claim, must take points even where it is the case that con forfeits. This is a controversial idea that I will explain in more depth regarding Conduct.

What you have expressed is one of two schools of thought concerning what a debate is, which is either a contest between two participants, or a referendum on the resolution. You seem to view a debate as the latter, I view it as the former.

The problem with the latter is that it opens the door for a very high level of subjectivity in voting. According to this, if Con fails to offer any valid refutation to Pros case then it is purely up to the voter to decide if they accept his arguments as "good enough". However if you don't accept them then Pro has absolutely no opportunity to address your concerns because you are not part of the debate. With this interpretation, if you don't accept Pros original argument then Cons best chance to win is to do nothing. I fail to see how that encourages a productive discussion, and in fact I have seen many cases where this type of thinking spoiled a debate, evidenced by Con contributing nothing but cheap shots to Pros case then claiming victory because Pro didn't do enough. That is a waste of time.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:03:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 3:47:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM, YYW wrote:
Back to BOP. Unless alternative provisions have been outlined and accepted by both debaters the burden of proof lies with he who asserts the validity of the claim. Ergo, it is the responsibility of PRO to make the case and the responsibility of CON to negate the case. That means that wether CON validly attacks PRO or not, if PRO's arguments are insufficient to prove the resolution, his argument fails on its own merit. This means that CON, whose only responsibility was not to have PRO prove his claim, must take points even where it is the case that con forfeits. This is a controversial idea that I will explain in more depth regarding Conduct.

What you have expressed is one of two schools of thought concerning what a debate is, which is either a contest between two participants, or a referendum on the resolution. You seem to view a debate as the latter, I view it as the former.

I view it as both, and I hardly see them as mutually exclusive. The only thing that differs is what BOP means. Granted, if both debaters stipulate to a split BOP then all of this is out the door.

The problem with the latter is that it opens the door for a very high level of subjectivity in voting. According to this, if Con fails to offer any valid refutation to Pros case then it is purely up to the voter to decide if they accept his arguments as "good enough".

That's actually an interesting proposition. Do you think that this is more subjective than voting by a split BOP? If so, why?

However if you don't accept them then Pro has absolutely no opportunity to address your concerns because you are not part of the debate. With this interpretation, if you don't accept Pros original argument then Cons best chance to win is to do nothing.

Well, con's best chance to win in any case is to expose the weakness of PRO's argument.

I fail to see how that encourages a productive discussion, and in fact I have seen many cases where this type of thinking spoiled a debate, evidenced by Con contributing nothing but cheap shots to Pros case then claiming victory because Pro didn't do enough. That is a waste of time.

Ok.
Tsar of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:43:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 12:39:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 8:35:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2012 5:19:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

No one forced you to acknowledge it, read it or comment on it. These are decisions you made of your own free will. And this was not self-aggrandizement. It was explanation. Wether you choose to recognize the distinction... well... idgaf.

I can be stupidly cranky sometimes; sorry to upset you.
Also, merry Christmas

No need to apologize, Icke. I hope you have a merry christmas as well.

You and MiG are the most antagonistic people on this site...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 6:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:43:06 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/25/2012 12:39:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 8:35:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2012 5:19:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

No one forced you to acknowledge it, read it or comment on it. These are decisions you made of your own free will. And this was not self-aggrandizement. It was explanation. Wether you choose to recognize the distinction... well... idgaf.

I can be stupidly cranky sometimes; sorry to upset you.
Also, merry Christmas

No need to apologize, Icke. I hope you have a merry christmas as well.

You and MiG are the most antagonistic people on this site...

It's a good thing that my activity does not reflect my natural disposition. :)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 7:00:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:43:06 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/25/2012 12:39:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 8:35:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/24/2012 5:19:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2012 2:19:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ignore threads about self-aggrandizement, but I found the length of this one particularly annoying.

No one forced you to acknowledge it, read it or comment on it. These are decisions you made of your own free will. And this was not self-aggrandizement. It was explanation. Wether you choose to recognize the distinction... well... idgaf.

I can be stupidly cranky sometimes; sorry to upset you.
Also, merry Christmas

No need to apologize, Icke. I hope you have a merry christmas as well.

You and MiG are the most antagonistic people on this site...

Meh.
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:03:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/25/2012 3:47:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM, YYW wrote:
Back to BOP. Unless alternative provisions have been outlined and accepted by both debaters the burden of proof lies with he who asserts the validity of the claim. Ergo, it is the responsibility of PRO to make the case and the responsibility of CON to negate the case. That means that wether CON validly attacks PRO or not, if PRO's arguments are insufficient to prove the resolution, his argument fails on its own merit. This means that CON, whose only responsibility was not to have PRO prove his claim, must take points even where it is the case that con forfeits. This is a controversial idea that I will explain in more depth regarding Conduct.

What you have expressed is one of two schools of thought concerning what a debate is, which is either a contest between two participants, or a referendum on the resolution. You seem to view a debate as the latter, I view it as the former.

I view it as both, and I hardly see them as mutually exclusive. The only thing that differs is what BOP means. Granted, if both debaters stipulate to a split BOP then all of this is out the door.

It's difficult to see how you can view them as both, at least for the sake of judging. First off let me clarify that by "contest", it is assumed that both participants start off on equal ground. A fight between two people where one has a knife and the other a sword, is not a real contest. In your OP you mentioned that Con could still win regardless of whether he validly attacks Pro or not. If that is the case then Con is not required to compete at the same level as Pro in order to win. That is not a contest.


The problem with the latter is that it opens the door for a very high level of subjectivity in voting. According to this, if Con fails to offer any valid refutation to Pros case then it is purely up to the voter to decide if they accept his arguments as "good enough".

That's actually an interesting proposition. Do you think that this is more subjective than voting by a split BOP? If so, why?

The phrase "more subjective" is a tricky one. I use it to avoid getting too deep...
http://debate.org...

When we think of a subjective judge, we think of someone who bases their vote on whom they agree with as opposed to who made the better argument. Giving Con the victory regardless of whether his attacks on Pro were valid, is a step closer in that direction because it allows you to dismiss Pros argument based on your own objections as opposed to strictly those provided by Con. So basically Pro is not just debating Con, but you as well. A split BoP doesn't allow that, thus going by what I just said would mean less subjectivity.


However if you don't accept them then Pro has absolutely no opportunity to address your concerns because you are not part of the debate. With this interpretation, if you don't accept Pros original argument then Cons best chance to win is to do nothing.

Well, con's best chance to win in any case is to expose the weakness of PRO's argument.

That doesn't address my point.

I fail to see how that encourages a productive discussion, and in fact I have seen many cases where this type of thinking spoiled a debate, evidenced by Con contributing nothing but cheap shots to Pros case then claiming victory because Pro didn't do enough. That is a waste of time.

Ok.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 5:54:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:57:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:03:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/25/2012 3:47:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM, YYW wrote:
Back to BOP. Unless alternative provisions have been outlined and accepted by both debaters the burden of proof lies with he who asserts the validity of the claim. Ergo, it is the responsibility of PRO to make the case and the responsibility of CON to negate the case. That means that wether CON validly attacks PRO or not, if PRO's arguments are insufficient to prove the resolution, his argument fails on its own merit. This means that CON, whose only responsibility was not to have PRO prove his claim, must take points even where it is the case that con forfeits. This is a controversial idea that I will explain in more depth regarding Conduct.

What you have expressed is one of two schools of thought concerning what a debate is, which is either a contest between two participants, or a referendum on the resolution. You seem to view a debate as the latter, I view it as the former.

I view it as both, and I hardly see them as mutually exclusive. The only thing that differs is what BOP means. Granted, if both debaters stipulate to a split BOP then all of this is out the door.

It's difficult to see how you can view them as both, at least for the sake of judging. First off let me clarify that by "contest", it is assumed that both participants start off on equal ground. A fight between two people where one has a knife and the other a sword, is not a real contest. In your OP you mentioned that Con could still win regardless of whether he validly attacks Pro or not. If that is the case then Con is not required to compete at the same level as Pro in order to win. That is not a contest.

Recognize that if both participants stipulate to a split BOP in the first round then I as the judge, judge accordingly. That means, a described above PRO must prove A and CON must prove ~A if A is the resolution. A debate isn't like a fight though. The metaphor, while interesting, invites a whole lot of problems. For example, if debate were a fight then knowledge is the real weapon. Some people might bring daggers to the fight, other people may command an air force. Why? People differ vastly in intelligence, both in terms of just simply things that they know and their IQs. (This is true of both debaters and judges.)

And yes, where PRO fails to satisfy his BOP (proving the resolution) CON wins wether he contributed to that or not, unless both players stipulated to a split BOP. That's the genesis of where you and I disagree. You assume a universally split BOP. I don't.


The problem with the latter is that it opens the door for a very high level of subjectivity in voting. According to this, if Con fails to offer any valid refutation to Pros case then it is purely up to the voter to decide if they accept his arguments as "good enough".

That's actually an interesting proposition. Do you think that this is more subjective than voting by a split BOP? If so, why?

The phrase "more subjective" is a tricky one. I use it to avoid getting too deep...
http://debate.org...

When we think of a subjective judge, we think of someone who bases their vote on whom they agree with as opposed to who made the better argument. Giving Con the victory regardless of whether his attacks on Pro were valid, is a step closer in that direction because it allows you to dismiss Pros argument based on your own objections as opposed to strictly those provided by Con. So basically Pro is not just debating Con, but you as well. A split BoP doesn't allow that, thus going by what I just said would mean less subjectivity.

I was hoping that you would pick up on the irony of me asking that question. What you are doing is weighing the potential for subjectivity based on competing theories of what constitutes a properly allocated BOP. What you're claiming is that as a judge who is requiring PRO to prove his claim that the judge would enable a judge to based on his own biases dismiss an argument based not on the merits of that argument but on his own objections in addition to those proffered by CON. This is a conclusion which just doesn't follow from your premises.

Rather it is the case that all votes cast are necessarily subjective, and this is something that is impossible to avoid. No person can cast a truly objective ballot. They can try, but ultimately are limited by the range of their experiences, their interpretations of the meanings of words, what they gather from the debaters presented. This, however, is not a bad thing. The metric of argumentative evaluation DDO chooses to employ is "convincingness." Wether or not a person is being "convinced" is something that calls for a subjective interpretation. The benefit in this is that it allows debaters to see which arguments reached and resonated with judges and which ones did not.

But in no case is PRO debating the judge. That is just nonsense.


However if you don't accept them then Pro has absolutely no opportunity to address your concerns because you are not part of the debate. With this interpretation, if you don't accept Pros original argument then Cons best chance to win is to do nothing.

Well, con's best chance to win in any case is to expose the weakness of PRO's argument.

That doesn't address my point.

Your point is a conclusion drawn from the idea that this style of judging engages PRO in a debate with the judge. That's just categorically not how it works.
Tsar of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 9:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Double_R said very succintly what I was trying to say as well. My view is a little different however.

I think objective votes are possible - I try to be as objective as I can be when voting. This shows in a lot of my recent RFDs. Judges can simply weigh both arguments, consider the impacts that the debaters are arguing for and pick the stronger arguments as the winner. I agree that there is a degree of subjectivity in every debate (I didn't read Double_R/Larz debate because of the formatting glitch) but I think that it is every judge's duty to keep this subjectivity to an absolute minimum. Weighing arguments and picking the stronger one is much different from making arguments and attributing to debaters arguments they did not make - which has become common among many judges at DDO. There are different levels of subjectivity.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 9:14:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 9:07:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

I think objective votes are possible - I try to be as objective as I can be when voting. This shows in a lot of my recent RFDs. Judges can simply weigh both arguments, consider the impacts that the debaters are arguing for and pick the stronger arguments as the winner. I agree that there is a degree of subjectivity in every debate (I didn't read Double_R/Larz debate because of the formatting glitch) but I think that it is every judge's duty to keep this subjectivity to an absolute minimum. Weighing arguments and picking the stronger one is much different from making arguments and attributing to debaters arguments they did not make - which has become common among many judges at DDO. There are different levels of subjectivity.

I think it's important to try to be objective, but we can't ever perfectly hit the mark of perfect objectivity. That said, I agree with most of this and think that the observation you made that I emboldened was especially salient to note. I have seen a lot of that too, and I would like to see less of it. (I'm really glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this, also.)
Tsar of DDO
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:08:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
BoP:
At 12/24/2012 9:01:01 AM, YYW wrote:
To start: unless otherwise stated it is the solemn responsibility of PRO to prove the claim articulated in the resolution. This means that PRO must offer a logically coherent case that affirms the resolution, and does so in a way that both accurately applies facts to contentions and uses contentions to support their argument. This works better if the argument is clearly syllogistically structured, but that doesn't have to be the case.

To take a simple case, let's assume that Pro initiates the debate, and argues first. Then, if he didn't stipulate differently, he has the burden of proof.

Now let's suppose that the resolution is that Socrates is a man. And further suppose that Pro argues thusly:

P1: Some men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

You say that Pro "must offer a logically coherent case that affirms the resolution." This suggests that Pro (having made the argument above) would lose the debate even if Con said nothing.

In contrast, I think that, once Pro makes a plausible argument, Con should point out what's wrong with it. Otherwise, you could say, "Well, that's a bad argument; I could defeat it. So I'll vote for Con whether he defeats it or not."

Forfeits:

I hate reading debates that say forfeits count as losses. Consider the above debate about Socrates. If that's Pro's case and Con says, "That argument isn't valid because P1 says, "Some men are mortal," rather than "All men are mortal."

If Pro never corrects that flaw, Con can forfeit the rest of the rounds and still win. He refuted Pro's argument. His failure to post further doesn't vacate that success.

Grammar:

Unless there is a noticeable difference, I usually leave this unchecked.

Even if one's better than the other, I don't generally give points unless the poorness of the grammar is bad enough to be a nuisance.

Sources:

I don't generally vote sources. But I'll vote source points when somebody misrepresents what a source says.

I hate it when people vote source points saying, "Pro had more sources." More sources is not the point. More-reliable sources is what is wanted. The instructions say "more reliable sources," but a hyphen should definitely be inserted between "more" and "reliable." (Yes, you could earn the points by having more sources of the reliable sort, but it is wrong to grant the points just for having more sources.)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 3:43:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 5:54:17 PM, YYW wrote:
Recognize that if both participants stipulate to a split BOP in the first round then I as the judge, judge accordingly. That means, a described above PRO must prove A and CON must prove ~A if A is the resolution. A debate isn't like a fight though. The metaphor, while interesting, invites a whole lot of problems. For example, if debate were a fight then knowledge is the real weapon. Some people might bring daggers to the fight, other people may command an air force. Why? People differ vastly in intelligence, both in terms of just simply things that they know and their IQs. (This is true of both debaters and judges.)

And yes, where PRO fails to satisfy his BOP (proving the resolution) CON wins wether he contributed to that or not, unless both players stipulated to a split BOP. That's the genesis of where you and I disagree. You assume a universally split BOP. I don't.

I think you misunderstand the difference between what I am arguing and a split BoP. In a split BoP, like you said, Pro must prove A while Con proves ~A. What I am arguing is that with the default BoP, it is Pros job to Prove A while it is Cons job to prove Pros case false or invalid.

If we disagree then this is where it is. According to your OP, you believe that if Pro fails to Prove A in an acceptable fashion then Con has no responsibility at all. I don't understand that. The weaker Pros argument is, the easier it is to defeat. If Con can't defeat such an easy argument then he deserves to lose.

Rather it is the case that all votes cast are necessarily subjective, and this is something that is impossible to avoid. No person can cast a truly objective ballot. They can try, but ultimately are limited by the range of their experiences, their interpretations of the meanings of words, what they gather from the debaters presented. This, however, is not a bad thing. The metric of argumentative evaluation DDO chooses to employ is "convincingness." Wether or not a person is being "convinced" is something that calls for a subjective interpretation. The benefit in this is that it allows debaters to see which arguments reached and resonated with judges and which ones did not.

Being that you are preaching to me about votes being necessarily subjective, I assume you didn't click my link. Yes, I agree with that. However the point I had made was about what we consider to be a subjective judge. If a liberal and a conservative are debating politics, a liberal judge might come along and vote against the conservative because he doesn't agree with any of his arguments regardless of what arguments the liberal debater made. This is what we would all consider a biased vote. The system you described brings us closer to that then mine does, therefore it is by that definition "more subjective".

If you have a different way you wish to define a more subjective judge then please do, hopefully you are not suggesting that because subjectivity is inevitable we should just disregard the concept altogether and vote however we feel like.

But in no case is PRO debating the judge. That is just nonsense.

Calling it nonsense doesn't make it nonsense. Of course as a matter semantics no they are not debating each other. But I like how Wiploc put it, you are voting against Pro not because Con refuted his argument but rather because you feel that you can. That certainly qualifies for me.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 7:32:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 3:43:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/27/2012 5:54:17 PM, YYW wrote:
Recognize that if both participants stipulate to a split BOP in the first round then I as the judge, judge accordingly. That means, a described above PRO must prove A and CON must prove ~A if A is the resolution. A debate isn't like a fight though. The metaphor, while interesting, invites a whole lot of problems. For example, if debate were a fight then knowledge is the real weapon. Some people might bring daggers to the fight, other people may command an air force. Why? People differ vastly in intelligence, both in terms of just simply things that they know and their IQs. (This is true of both debaters and judges.)

And yes, where PRO fails to satisfy his BOP (proving the resolution) CON wins wether he contributed to that or not, unless both players stipulated to a split BOP. That's the genesis of where you and I disagree. You assume a universally split BOP. I don't.

I think you misunderstand the difference between what I am arguing and a split BoP. In a split BoP, like you said, Pro must prove A while Con proves ~A. What I am arguing is that with the default BoP, it is Pros job to Prove A while it is Cons job to prove Pros case false or invalid.

If we disagree then this is where it is. According to your OP, you believe that if Pro fails to Prove A in an acceptable fashion then Con has no responsibility at all. I don't understand that. The weaker Pros argument is, the easier it is to defeat. If Con can't defeat such an easy argument then he deserves to lose.

If it is CON's job assuming a regular BOP to invalidate PRO's case, and PRO's case is invalid, then CON has fulfilled his obligation, wether he contributed to invalidating PRO's case or not. How can this be?

Example:
PRO:
Some men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

CON:
Yeah Yeah Whatever.

Verdict:
CON wins because pro's argument is fallacious.

Rather it is the case that all votes cast are necessarily subjective, and this is something that is impossible to avoid. No person can cast a truly objective ballot. They can try, but ultimately are limited by the range of their experiences, their interpretations of the meanings of words, what they gather from the debaters presented. This, however, is not a bad thing. The metric of argumentative evaluation DDO chooses to employ is "convincingness." Wether or not a person is being "convinced" is something that calls for a subjective interpretation. The benefit in this is that it allows debaters to see which arguments reached and resonated with judges and which ones did not.

Being that you are preaching to me about votes being necessarily subjective, I assume you didn't click my link. Yes, I agree with that.

I actually read that some time ago and if I recall properly I commented on it a while ago as well. Didn't want to re-read it. Sorry.

However the point I had made was about what we consider to be a subjective judge. If a liberal and a conservative are debating politics, a liberal judge might come along and vote against the conservative because he doesn't agree with any of his arguments regardless of what arguments the liberal debater made. This is what we would all consider a biased vote. The system you described brings us closer to that then mine does, therefore it is by that definition "more subjective".

No it doesn't. The reason why is because the evaluation of an argument itself does not necessitate that another person will interject their own bias to an unreasonable degree. Double_R, I believe that most voters on the site (the ones who matter) do their best to judge as best -and unbiasedly- as they can. I do, and I think you do too. Like I mentioned in my comment with F-16 I think that also the best judge is the one who can minimize bias as much as possible. On a theoretical basis, if others were to judge in this way, they would be no more inclined to be biased voters then under an alternative scheme. How can I assert this? Because it comes down to the individual voter and how they apply.


If you have a different way you wish to define a more subjective judge then please do, hopefully you are not suggesting that because subjectivity is inevitable we should just disregard the concept altogether and vote however we feel like.

Ok, the point was that "more subjective" is a nonsense term, and what I was getting at was that your point that my system is more prone to bias voting than yours. I thought I made this clear in my first post and again with my comment to F-16, but though perfect objectivity is an unachievable goal, it is the duty of the voter to get as close to that mark as possible. That much we at least can agree on.

But in no case is PRO debating the judge. That is just nonsense.

Calling it nonsense doesn't make it nonsense. Of course as a matter semantics no they are not debating each other. But I like how Wiploc put it, you are voting against Pro not because Con refuted his argument but rather because you feel that you can. That certainly qualifies for me.

I understand that a lot of people haven't had a background in formal logic. Not here to tout my resume against others, but there are two problems I have with that statement:

(1) If an argument is presented, that is obviously flawed, such as the one exemplified above, to not award CON the victory is to reward logical fallacy. As I have said before and I will say again, because it is CON's duty in regular BOP only to undermine PRO's case, if PRO's case is itself fallacious, then CON fulfills his obligation with or without contributing to it. That said, it certainly wouldn't hurt for CON to note said logical fallacy.
(2) Feeling has nothing to do with it. I don't "feel" when I read an argument. I think. I don't "feel" logical fallacy. I recognize it and vote accordingly. I know you probably think at this point I'm just splitting hairs, and that's ok with me, but there is a profound degree of difference between "thinking" and "feeling."
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:55:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 7:32:29 PM, YYW wrote:
If it is CON's job assuming a regular BOP to invalidate PRO's case, and PRO's case is invalid, then CON has fulfilled his obligation, wether he contributed to invalidating PRO's case or not. How can this be?

Example:
PRO:
Some men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

CON:
Yeah Yeah Whatever.

Verdict:
CON wins because pro's argument is fallacious.

Well this is what it comes down to. Later on in your previous post you justified this by stating that "to not award CON the victory is to reward logical fallacy". So it all comes down to a very simple question: Which is worse, rewarding a logical fallacy, or rewarding a debater for doing absolutely nothing?

Earlier when I stated that a debate is either a referendum or a contest you responded by saying that you view them as both. Your example demonstrates why that makes no sense. To award victory to someone who doesn't even bother to compete directly contradicts the definition of the word contest. So if this is your position then that is fine, we agree to disagree. But at least then admit that you do not believe a debate is a contest.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 1:42:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's a perfect example of awarding Con the victory because _you_ could have beaten Pro.

I make an exception for one-round debates. In single-round debates, Pro doesn't have a chance to counter Con's arguments, so we have to weigh them ourselves. And, in that circumstance, I may also weigh Pro's argument myself.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:27:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 12:55:16 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/28/2012 7:32:29 PM, YYW wrote:
If it is CON's job assuming a regular BOP to invalidate PRO's case, and PRO's case is invalid, then CON has fulfilled his obligation, wether he contributed to invalidating PRO's case or not. How can this be?

Example:
PRO:
Some men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

CON:
Yeah Yeah Whatever.

Verdict:
CON wins because pro's argument is fallacious.

Well this is what it comes down to. Later on in your previous post you justified this by stating that "to not award CON the victory is to reward logical fallacy". So it all comes down to a very simple question: Which is worse, rewarding a logical fallacy, or rewarding a debater for doing absolutely nothing?

Rewarding logical fallacy. You're welcome to disagree, Double R. I'm not saying you have to vote this way.

Earlier when I stated that a debate is either a referendum or a contest you responded by saying that you view them as both.

One or the other, possibly both.

Your example demonstrates why that makes no sense. To award victory to someone who doesn't even bother to compete directly contradicts the definition of the word contest.

Both do not necessarily have to be the case. Only one.

So if this is your position then that is fine, we agree to disagree. But at least then admit that you do not believe a debate is a contest.

Of course it is a contest, Double R. It becomes a contest when arguments are logically valid. It cannot be a contest when both arguments are not logically valid.

I'm impressed that you're trying as hard as you are to prove me wrong. Not really sure why... but this is entertaining. Perhaps we should debate it.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:28:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 1:42:54 AM, wiploc wrote:
That's a perfect example of awarding Con the victory because _you_ could have beaten Pro.

It is of no consequence if a judge could have beaten PRO to the outcome of the debate.
Tsar of DDO