Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Kleptin's "Debate of Fools"

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:09:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi. For 5 years on this site, I've titled myself as the "best of the worst debaters".

I'm sure that each and every debater here has gone through the frustration of arguing with a layperson, wishing that they knew the rules of actual formal debate. Many times, it is possible for a seasoned debater to seemingly *lose* to a layperson simply because the layperson talks faster, speaks more simply, and deludes the audience better through shared ignorance.

I wanted to know if anyone wanted to participate in a tournament where this debate style is featured:

Strict character limitations
No sources or quotes
No technical terminology or advanced concepts unless they are built from the ground up

The audience votes on succinctness and simplicity over technical debate skill.

Thoughts?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:21:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd feel skeptical of being able to build technical terminology "from the ground up" if there are strict character limits. What would these character limits entail?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:36:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A pure-logic debate? Sign me up.
#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
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:29:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:09:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi. For 5 years on this site, I've titled myself as the "best of the worst debaters".

I'm sure that each and every debater here has gone through the frustration of arguing with a layperson, wishing that they knew the rules of actual formal debate. Many times, it is possible for a seasoned debater to seemingly *lose* to a layperson simply because the layperson talks faster, speaks more simply, and deludes the audience better through shared ignorance.

I wanted to know if anyone wanted to participate in a tournament where this debate style is featured:

Strict character limitations
No sources or quotes
No technical terminology or advanced concepts unless they are built from the ground up

The audience votes on succinctness and simplicity over technical debate skill.

Thoughts?

I'm sure there are a few on here who would put me into the "fool" category. Let's make it quick though, I only have a few days this weekend, if you're interested. Then, I actually have to work. Argh...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 9:05:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:09:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi. For 5 years on this site, I've titled myself as the "best of the worst debaters".

I'm sure that each and every debater here has gone through the frustration of arguing with a layperson, wishing that they knew the rules of actual formal debate. Many times, it is possible for a seasoned debater to seemingly *lose* to a layperson simply because the layperson talks faster, speaks more simply, and deludes the audience better through shared ignorance.

I wanted to know if anyone wanted to participate in a tournament where this debate style is featured:

Strict character limitations
No sources or quotes
No technical terminology or advanced concepts unless they are built from the ground up

The audience votes on succinctness and simplicity over technical debate skill.

Thoughts?

So what's going on with this? I probably want to do it.

What kinds of topics though? And when? What exactly will the character limit be?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
DoctorDeku
Posts: 162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 12:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wanna do it!

Also, I'd be willing to *run tab* for matches and resolutions. I had a pretty good system for It worked out here ( https://www.debate.org... ), but interest dwindled in that tournament idea quickly.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:08:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you're saying that better debaters lose to worse debaters because they speak slowly using complex language no-one understands posing positions based on assumptions the crowd does not share?

I'd say they're the worse debater.
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...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:51:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 10:08:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
So you're saying that better debaters lose to worse debaters because they speak slowly using complex language no-one understands posing positions based on assumptions the crowd does not share?

I'd say they're the worse debater.

I've seen loads of debates where the person who actually understands the topic loses to someone who doesn't, simply because the other person uses simple, intuitive sounding arguments. For example, I've seen people lose "Pro: 0.999... = 1" even when they provide sound mathematical proofs.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:26:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is distinction between not knowing the rules of formal debate and not knowing the facts related to the argument. Not knowing the facts liberates the person from reality, which allows all manner of fanciful arguments. The opponents rebuttals need to reference facts, otherwise it is a storytelling competition rather than a debate.

So if you are going to debate without sources, it has to be a topic upon which the facts are not at issue. That can be because both sides agree on the facts, or because there are no relevant facts. The example that comes to mind is the "I shall not contradict myself" debate. Facts often intrude when unappreciated. Is the premise "even event has a cause" a logical necessity or an argument from incredulity? I think it is incredulity, a question of fact, not logic.

As to the rules of formal debate, I'm not sure what that covers. Avoiding logical fallacies seems to me not to be rules of formal debate, just rules. There are no "rules of formal physics" distinct from informal physics. The rules of logic are just rules. That leaves rules of formal debate to include conduct and space or time limitations. Those rules are DDO standards.

My impression is that the judging rule that good academic debaters crave is that no point can be dropped. If you want to win a formal debate on "The earth is flat." The way to do it is to cite a dozen expert opinions from history, appeal to common sense, make wildly obscure arguments from theoretical physics, make complex arguments about weather patterns and climate, and promote the idea of a vast conspiracy of people who benefit from round earth theory. The experienced academic debater will then point out that few of his opponents arguments were conclusive, and that fully a third of them were dropped entirely, effectively conceding the debate.

I don't have a problem with anyone debating in a way that is fun to them. Pure debate, freed from facts and common sense, doesn't seem like fun to me.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:33:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 10:51:51 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/20/2013 10:08:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
So you're saying that better debaters lose to worse debaters because they speak slowly using complex language no-one understands posing positions based on assumptions the crowd does not share?

I'd say they're the worse debater.

I've seen loads of debates where the person who actually understands the topic loses to someone who doesn't, simply because the other person uses simple, intuitive sounding arguments. For example, I've seen people lose "Pro: 0.999... = 1" even when they provide sound mathematical proofs.

There's three reasons for this happening

1) The debate is not one that you debate in a debating format. Or to make that simpler, it's like using division on Shakespeare: wrong form for the topic at hand.

2) PRO didn't rebut CON properly, or PRO put forth false arguments. I've seen one like this, where PRO and CON both put forth inductive cases. In which case, it's up for grabs who wins.

3) PRO didn't explain his proof well enough. In which case, PRO loses. You may be right, but if your answer isn't clear enough, you can't win a debate.

The bottom 2 are adequate reasons for why CON should win a debate which in reality they cannot win. The same reason why e.g. geocentrists or creationists are better at debates: the other side is worse because it is so well established that they do not need to practice, so when it is challenged the format makes them get screwed.
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...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:09:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi. For 5 years on this site, I've titled myself as the "best of the worst debaters".

I'm sure that each and every debater here has gone through the frustration of arguing with a layperson, wishing that they knew the rules of actual formal debate. Many times, it is possible for a seasoned debater to seemingly *lose* to a layperson simply because the layperson talks faster, speaks more simply, and deludes the audience better through shared ignorance.

I wanted to know if anyone wanted to participate in a tournament where this debate style is featured:

Strict character limitations
No sources or quotes
No technical terminology or advanced concepts unless they are built from the ground up

The audience votes on succinctness and simplicity over technical debate skill.

Thoughts?

I once saw, written in this very part of the forms, that it's generally accepted that a debate isn't won by presenting clear and actual facts, but instead, by presenting "more convincing arguments."

I take it that you disagree, and this may be where a lot of your contention derives.

If it means anything, I agree with you.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:55:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:26:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
There is distinction between not knowing the rules of formal debate and not knowing the facts related to the argument. Not knowing the facts liberates the person from reality, which allows all manner of fanciful arguments. The opponents rebuttals need to reference facts, otherwise it is a storytelling competition rather than a debate.

So if you are going to debate without sources, it has to be a topic upon which the facts are not at issue. That can be because both sides agree on the facts, or because there are no relevant facts. The example that comes to mind is the "I shall not contradict myself" debate. Facts often intrude when unappreciated. Is the premise "even event has a cause" a logical necessity or an argument from incredulity? I think it is incredulity, a question of fact, not logic.

As to the rules of formal debate, I'm not sure what that covers. Avoiding logical fallacies seems to me not to be rules of formal debate, just rules. There are no "rules of formal physics" distinct from informal physics. The rules of logic are just rules. That leaves rules of formal debate to include conduct and space or time limitations. Those rules are DDO standards.

My impression is that the judging rule that good academic debaters crave is that no point can be dropped. If you want to win a formal debate on "The earth is flat." The way to do it is to cite a dozen expert opinions from history, appeal to common sense, make wildly obscure arguments from theoretical physics, make complex arguments about weather patterns and climate, and promote the idea of a vast conspiracy of people who benefit from round earth theory. The experienced academic debater will then point out that few of his opponents arguments were conclusive, and that fully a third of them were dropped entirely, effectively conceding the debate.

I don't have a problem with anyone debating in a way that is fun to them. Pure debate, freed from facts and common sense, doesn't seem like fun to me.

Based on your debating/voting history, this post is full of lies.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:36:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
A pure-logic debate? Sign me up.

No no, it sounds like a purely rhetorical debate. I've thought of this before, where it's all about the presentation, but substance is irrelevant, you know, like in real life.

Sign me up.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:24:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Semantical debates are my guilty pleasure.

Reminds me of when I argued that the sky is, at all times and places, yellow.

http://www.debate.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:49:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:55:18 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

Based on your debating/voting history, this post is full of lies.

State which things you believe are lies and provide backup. Since I was obviously giving an opinion, which calimed facts did I "lie" about.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 10:49:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:55:18 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

Based on your debating/voting history, this post is full of lies.

State which things you believe are lies and provide backup. Since I was obviously giving an opinion, which calimed facts did I "lie" about.

I would actually be curious too, because from what I can tell Roy generally does a pretty good job (I'd agree about 90% of the time on voting -for what astoundingly little my opinion is worth, lol).