Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Where is this Definition Lacking?

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 7:04:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
DanT wouldn't accept my debate because I didn't add, "assumes Laisse Faire/Free Market" to the end of this definition -

2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not both an obvious and a given? I already had to add that a "lack of" means "none" to satisfy him, plus edit the rules/conditions of the debate 2 other times for petty crap that didn't matter or was a given by definition of the words already used. I was sick of these petty changes, so I said, take it or leave it.

He left it.

He states that it was because my definition was a "fallacy" (his word). Is it? Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't think so.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 9:03:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Someone being arsey.

I still think this site is massively anal when it comes to definitions and burden of proof. Being so picky is quite irrelevant and irritating, rather than anything of substance.
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...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 10:23:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, except now I'm "losing" the debate we started that DanT goofed all up with his arsery, because I "forfeited".

I didn't forfeit. I tried to fix it, I gave DanT the ability to change his initial rebuttal, while restricting myself to no changes (not even fixing typos I noticed after the fact) in anything I had already posted to the original debate, but he quibbled over something that was actually broader than the definition he wanted (in his favor), and turned me down (thrice...).

so the better structured debate that actually has a coherent resolution is turned down, I have no more will to participate in the mess DanT created (which yes, I accepted, but he changed things just before I did that I didn't notice until after the fact), but people are saying I forfeited? I'm saying that's bullsh!t.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 11:10:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 7:04:18 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
DanT wouldn't accept my debate because I didn't add, "assumes Laisse Faire/Free Market" to the end of this definition -

2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not both an obvious and a given? I already had to add that a "lack of" means "none" to satisfy him, plus edit the rules/conditions of the debate 2 other times for petty crap that didn't matter or was a given by definition of the words already used. I was sick of these petty changes, so I said, take it or leave it.

He left it.

He states that it was because my definition was a "fallacy" (his word). Is it? Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't think so.

I don't remember who said it first, but DanT likes to excessively define words to semantically disprove arguments in his debates....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 6:52:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 7:04:18 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
DanT wouldn't accept my debate because I didn't add, "assumes Laisse Faire/Free Market" to the end of this definition -

No I wouldnt accept it because you replaced the rule that "there is assumption of Laissez Faire after deregulation", with a rule restricting the definition of Laissez Faire.
Once again you are misquoting me.
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not both an obvious and a given? I already had to add that a "lack of" means "none" to satisfy him,
No you didn't.
I asked you to get rid of the definition, because it's a definition fallacy, and to restore the original rule that there is an assumption of laissez faire aftr deregulation (not a definition), like in the original debate which you quit after round 1.
plus edit the rules/conditions of the debate 2 other times for petty crap that didn't matter or was a given by definition of the words already used. I was sick of these petty changes, so I said, take it or leave it.


You edited the rules once, but made changes.
1.)You wanted to have a rule that "ad hominem attacks are allowed", but I asked you to change it to "no ad hominem attacks" like I had in the original debate.

2.) I asked you to get rid of the site you wanted all economic terms to be referenced by. I asked you to remove it because the site overly defined the terms, and included commentary in the definitions.

the rules in the first debate was:

1.) malcolmxy has the BOP
2.) 1st round acceptance only
3.) no ad hominem attacks
4.) there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation

You broke rule number 2 in round 1, than quit the debate, and asked to start over.

You created a new debate with the following rules:

1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. ad hominem attacks are allowed

I than told you I would not debate you if there was ad hominem attacks and an external reference for terms, and I requested you use the rules from the first debate. You than changed the rules to;

1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)
3. Alright - no ad hominem,

He left it.

He states that it was because my definition was a "fallacy" (his word). Is it? Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't think so.

As I said in the comments of our first debate;

"you defined it as 'deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation'
So if there was regulations prior to the market's existence that effects the market, than completely eliminating regulation does not count as 'no regulation'".
Removing only some regulations, but leaving others can count as 'no regulation', by your definition; which means there is not an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation, but it's still semantically called 'laissez faire' whether it is actually laissez faire or not.

Simply defining 'no regulations' as 'a deregulated market', does not mean that there is an assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation. If you defined 'deregulation' as 'removing all regulations', than there would be an assumption of laissez faire, but not the reverse."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:02:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 10:23:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Yes, except now I'm "losing" the debate we started that DanT goofed all up with his arsery, because I "forfeited".

I didn't forfeit. I tried to fix it, I gave DanT the ability to change his initial rebuttal, while restricting myself to no changes (not even fixing typos I noticed after the fact) in anything I had already posted to the original debate, but he quibbled over something that was actually broader than the definition he wanted (in his favor), and turned me down (thrice...).

Yeah but you changed the resolution, and the rules.

so the better structured debate that actually has a coherent resolution is turned down,
"Deregulation increases the chance monopolies will form" isn't coherent? You are nuts, if you think that resolution is not coherent. It's the same as your resolution ("Lack of Regulation On Natural Resources In Inelastic Markets Causes Monoplolies to Form"), only worded differently, and with better grammar.

I have no more will to participate in the mess DanT created (which yes, I accepted, but he changed things just before I did that I didn't notice until after the fact), but people are saying I forfeited? I'm saying that's bullsh!t.

I didn't change squat. You didn't read the rules before you accepted. Why on earth would I give you the first and last word in the debate?
You did forfeit, you quit the debate before the 2nd debate was accepted. You didn't post in round 2, explaining why you were not posting a new argument, and you did not request that a mod delete the debate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:11:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 11:10:59 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2013 7:04:18 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
DanT wouldn't accept my debate because I didn't add, "assumes Laisse Faire/Free Market" to the end of this definition -

2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not both an obvious and a given? I already had to add that a "lack of" means "none" to satisfy him, plus edit the rules/conditions of the debate 2 other times for petty crap that didn't matter or was a given by definition of the words already used. I was sick of these petty changes, so I said, take it or leave it.

He left it.

He states that it was because my definition was a "fallacy" (his word). Is it? Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't think so.

I don't remember who said it first, but DanT likes to excessively define words to semantically disprove arguments in his debates....

I asked him to remove the definition, not to expand upon it. I did not ask him to add it. This perception of me as a definition junky is completely false. I only use definitions to clarify context; clarification of context is not needed in an economics debate. In an economics debate, it is assumed the debaters and voters are aware of the economic terms.

malcolmxy was excessively over defining economic terms, and I asked him to remove the over-defined definitions numerous times.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:19:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/6/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/5/2013, malcolmxy edited 2nd debate:
At 2/5/2013, DanT wrote in 2nd debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/4/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 2/3/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 2nd debate:
At 1/31/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/31/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/30/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate's comments:
At 1/29/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/29/2013, malcolmxy wrote in 1st debate:
At 1/28/2013, DanT wrote in 1st debate:
Debate Rules;
1.) malcolmxy has the BOP
2.) 1st round acceptance only
3.) no ad hominem attacks
4.) there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation
The 1st point that Pro failed to understand in the forums.....
Pro violated the 2nd rule of the debate; "1st round acceptance only"....
If I accept only, then you have to spend a round thanking me and it's a big waste of time. I'l bring you some kleenex later.
No, round 1 was acceptance only, because I was suppose to put forth the first argument, otherwise you have both the first and last argument.
I should be going 1st since you need my argument to post yours.
Let's just scrap this one, start over, except the 1st 2 rounds will remain the same with the exception that I will set up the debate and thus go 1st.
Fine, I'll let you restart the debate so you can go first.
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. ad hominem attacks are allowed
OK...I didn't change the spirit of your rules, but I did change how they were worded. I posted a link to.... Economic Terms and Definitions....
I think that will help with the definition stuff later on as well.
Realize, if you can, though, that just because I don't write as if I am the publisher of an econ textbook, doesn't mean I don't know what all these terms mean.
You changed them completely. You went from "no ad hominem attacks" to "adhominem attacks are allowed".
You also changed the rules from saying that "there is the assumption of laissez-faire after deregulation", to "Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation"...
Your definition of "regulations in the new debate is a circular definition fallacy, and the source you provided for economic definitions is overly narrow resulting in the narrow definition fallacy .
Well, I'm not going to make the deadline for this debate, so I hope you finally accept the other one.
try the resolution: Lack of Regulation of Natural Resources In Inelastic Markets Causes Monopolies to Form
Same rules as last time. I really don't want ad hominem attacks
Lack of Regulation On Natural Resources In Inelastic Markets Causes Monoplolies to Form
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)
3. all definitions are referenced from [external glossary]
4. Alright - no ad hominem,
Are you going to accept the other one now? I think I made the change you requested, which was the last change you requested.
The only change I didn't make was losing the site for definitions.
you didn't make the changed I requested. You just added notes.
There is no such thing as a semantic argument with economic definitions.
1. malcolmxy has the Burden of Proof
2. Lack of Regulation can include deregulation, a complete lack of regulation from the start of the market's existence or completely unenforced regulation (lack means none - DanT Edit)
3. Alright - no ad hominem,
there...happy now? Can we just start already?
I'm not making any more changes. I'm issuing it one more time. I'm sick of placating you and your petty, inconsequential demands.
It's not petty demands. You replaced the rule that there is an assumption of laissez faire after deregulation with a rule that limits the definition of laissez faire.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle