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

Another way to debate

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:29:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do people think of the idea of having debates in which both Pro and Con argue for the same side? The votes would better reflect the quality of the arguments rather than the convictions of the voters.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:33:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What do people think of the idea of having debates in which both Pro and Con argue for the same side? The votes would better reflect the quality of the arguments rather than the convictions of the voters.

If there was no opposition how would the strength of arguments actually be put to the test?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:35:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:33:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What do people think of the idea of having debates in which both Pro and Con argue for the same side? The votes would better reflect the quality of the arguments rather than the convictions of the voters.

If there was no opposition how would the strength of arguments actually be put to the test?

By the reason used. An article can be convincing and make a good case for a resolution without having a rebuttal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:36:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:33:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:29:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
What do people think of the idea of having debates in which both Pro and Con argue for the same side? The votes would better reflect the quality of the arguments rather than the convictions of the voters.

If there was no opposition how would the strength of arguments actually be put to the test?

It would be up to the voter to determine which side presented a more compelling and convincing case, essentially. Really no different than it is now.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it's a neat idea, but it would be hard to execute because each of them would be feeding off the other to a certain extent. There would be overlap between their arguments. And how would you judge if two people presented the same argument? Would you penalize the second person for "steeling" the first person's argument? If so, then the second person is at a loss because the first person could use arguments the second person would've used, and the fact that the first persons used those arguments first would prevent the second person from being able to use them.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:54:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:51:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think it's a neat idea, but it would be hard to execute because each of them would be feeding off the other to a certain extent. There would be overlap between their arguments. And how would you judge if two people presented the same argument? Would you penalize the second person for "steeling" the first person's argument? If so, then the second person is at a loss because the first person could use arguments the second person would've used, and the fact that the first persons used those arguments first would prevent the second person from being able to use them.

A single round other than acceptance :)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:55:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:54:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:51:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think it's a neat idea, but it would be hard to execute because each of them would be feeding off the other to a certain extent. There would be overlap between their arguments. And how would you judge if two people presented the same argument? Would you penalize the second person for "steeling" the first person's argument? If so, then the second person is at a loss because the first person could use arguments the second person would've used, and the fact that the first persons used those arguments first would prevent the second person from being able to use them.

A single round other than acceptance :)

I realize that they could still copy, but it would be obvious.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, this idea is rather hard to do properly, I admit. Both sides would need to write their debates beforehand and when both people are on at the same time, post them within one or two minutes of each other.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:57:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not actually that hard ...bu t it would involve SOME planning. If both people are on at the same time, it would be very easy if there is a plan.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:54:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:51:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think it's a neat idea, but it would be hard to execute because each of them would be feeding off the other to a certain extent. There would be overlap between their arguments. And how would you judge if two people presented the same argument? Would you penalize the second person for "steeling" the first person's argument? If so, then the second person is at a loss because the first person could use arguments the second person would've used, and the fact that the first persons used those arguments first would prevent the second person from being able to use them.

A single round other than acceptance :)

I believe what he is saying is that whoever goes second, can simply copy the first person's arguments and improve them slightly to get the easy win. Or on the flip side, if we say "no stealing arguments" then whoever goes first and use all the arguments and leave the second person with nothing to contribute to the debate and get an auto loss.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:57:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:54:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:51:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think it's a neat idea, but it would be hard to execute because each of them would be feeding off the other to a certain extent. There would be overlap between their arguments. And how would you judge if two people presented the same argument? Would you penalize the second person for "steeling" the first person's argument? If so, then the second person is at a loss because the first person could use arguments the second person would've used, and the fact that the first persons used those arguments first would prevent the second person from being able to use them.

A single round other than acceptance :)

I believe what he is saying is that whoever goes second, can simply copy the first person's arguments and improve them slightly to get the easy win. Or on the flip side, if we say "no stealing arguments" then whoever goes first and use all the arguments and leave the second person with nothing to contribute to the debate and get an auto loss.

Yeah, I got his point now :)
My suggestion isn't ideal, but it's definitely possible. It would be nice if DDO accommodated for this kind of debate.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:00:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All DDO would need to do would be to implement an option hide the first argument until the other side posted their argument. Simple.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:00:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All DDO would need to do would be to implement an option hide the first argument until the other side posted their argument. Simple.

Such concepts (both arguments of each round being posted at the same time) have been attempted before but never generated significant support.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:02:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:00:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All DDO would need to do would be to implement an option hide the first argument until the other side posted their argument. Simple.

Such concepts (both arguments of each round being posted at the same time) have been attempted before but never generated significant support.

Were the concepts intended for the kind of debate I describe?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:05:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:04:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:02:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:00:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All DDO would need to do would be to implement an option hide the first argument until the other side posted their argument. Simple.

Such concepts (both arguments of each round being posted at the same time) have been attempted before but never generated significant support.

Were the concepts intended for the kind of debate I describe?

I doubt it. If people DID want to do the debate I describe, they'd want this. Also, I see no harm in letting people have these kinds of debates.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:16:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:05:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:04:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:02:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:00:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All DDO would need to do would be to implement an option hide the first argument until the other side posted their argument. Simple.

Such concepts (both arguments of each round being posted at the same time) have been attempted before but never generated significant support.

Were the concepts intended for the kind of debate I describe?

I doubt it. If people DID want to do the debate I describe, they'd want this. Also, I see no harm in letting people have these kinds of debates.

It's not really about "harm," it's about is it worth the effort? Are there enough people that want it badly enough that Juggle should be paying employees to code it?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:19:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:16:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:05:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:04:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:02:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:00:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All DDO would need to do would be to implement an option hide the first argument until the other side posted their argument. Simple.

Such concepts (both arguments of each round being posted at the same time) have been attempted before but never generated significant support.

Were the concepts intended for the kind of debate I describe?

I doubt it. If people DID want to do the debate I describe, they'd want this. Also, I see no harm in letting people have these kinds of debates.

It's not really about "harm," it's about is it worth the effort? Are there enough people that want it badly enough that Juggle should be paying employees to code it?

I'm not sure.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:52:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:56:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Actually, this idea is rather hard to do properly, I admit. Both sides would need to write their debates beforehand and when both people are on at the same time, post them within one or two minutes of each other.

I think that's a good solution--have them just agree between themselves to each write their arguments without reading the other person's arguments first. And you'd just have to trust the second person not to change what they wrote after reading what the first person posted.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:56:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:16:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

It's not really about "harm," it's about is it worth the effort? Are there enough people that want it badly enough that Juggle should be paying employees to code it?

I don't see why it would require extra code. Sure one person would be "Con," but if they stipulate in the first round what kind of debate it is, that shouldn't cause any confusion. You could just have two rounds. Round 1 is definitions, rules, and acceptance. Round 2 is arguments. It seems simple enough to me with things the way they are.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:56:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:52:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:56:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Actually, this idea is rather hard to do properly, I admit. Both sides would need to write their debates beforehand and when both people are on at the same time, post them within one or two minutes of each other.

I think that's a good solution--have them just agree between themselves to each write their arguments without reading the other person's arguments first. And you'd just have to trust the second person not to change what they wrote after reading what the first person posted.

Or do 15 minute rounds, but don't state the debate until both sides are already done and so they just need to post it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:56:00 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:16:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

It's not really about "harm," it's about is it worth the effort? Are there enough people that want it badly enough that Juggle should be paying employees to code it?

I don't see why it would require extra code. Sure one person would be "Con," but if they stipulate in the first round what kind of debate it is, that shouldn't cause any confusion. You could just have two rounds. Round 1 is definitions, rules, and acceptance. Round 2 is arguments. It seems simple enough to me with things the way they are.

Or maybe three rounds. The last round could be used to show weaknesses in the other person's arguments, or to explain why you did a better job of defending some point than they did.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:58:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:56:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:52:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:56:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Actually, this idea is rather hard to do properly, I admit. Both sides would need to write their debates beforehand and when both people are on at the same time, post them within one or two minutes of each other.

I think that's a good solution--have them just agree between themselves to each write their arguments without reading the other person's arguments first. And you'd just have to trust the second person not to change what they wrote after reading what the first person posted.

Or do 15 minute rounds, but don't state the debate until both sides are already done and so they just need to post it.

Another good idea!
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 4:49:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's interesting you mention this kind of debate, as I've had the opportunity to be in such a debate myself once here. Sort of. It was a debate on abortion, and how the morality of abortion should be determined. Both arguments presented implied abortion was morally permissible, it was just a matter of which argument was stronger for that line of thinking. You can read it here:

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