Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Honor and fair play

DWolf2k2
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Maybe it's because I come from North American Parliamentary Debate, but I've got a beef with something. Something I've noticed is that a bit of the time, people will try to start debates, take up the pro side of their resolution, and then try to dump Burden of Proof on their opponent. I have never heard of a debate format where the one OPPOSED to the resolution must prove that the resolution is false, rather then the one IN FAVOR of the resolution must SUPPORT and DEFEND their resolution from attack. In fact, in debate, that's part of Prima Facie burden. Pro gets the chance to set the terms of the debate, frame it, and the first chance to make their point, thus setting down what can be talked about and brought forth in the debate. In exchange, the Pro MUST be more convincing then the Con, and if the two sides are judged equal, the win goes to Con. I would just like to see less of this , at least what I see it as, Dirty Trick, and more debaters willing to actually defend their resolutions.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 12:54:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 11:49:35 PM, DWolf2k2 wrote:
Maybe it's because I come from North American Parliamentary Debate, but I've got a beef with something. Something I've noticed is that a bit of the time, people will try to start debates, take up the pro side of their resolution, and then try to dump Burden of Proof on their opponent. I have never heard of a debate format where the one OPPOSED to the resolution must prove that the resolution is false, rather then the one IN FAVOR of the resolution must SUPPORT and DEFEND their resolution from attack. In fact, in debate, that's part of Prima Facie burden. Pro gets the chance to set the terms of the debate, frame it, and the first chance to make their point, thus setting down what can be talked about and brought forth in the debate. In exchange, the Pro MUST be more convincing then the Con, and if the two sides are judged equal, the win goes to Con. I would just like to see less of this , at least what I see it as, Dirty Trick, and more debaters willing to actually defend their resolutions.

It is important to fully read any debate before accepting it to understand exactly what each person's burden is. As a debate site, we try to be accommodating to as many possibilities as possible (that just rolls off the tongue weird). This means that Pro can set the BoP on Con, and if Con accepts it, then Con has accepted it. You'll see this a lot in religious debates, where someone creates a debate saying "prove to me God exists" (or does not exist).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DWolf2k2
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:19:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 12:54:40 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/1/2013 11:49:35 PM, DWolf2k2 wrote:
Maybe it's because I come from North American Parliamentary Debate, but I've got a beef with something. Something I've noticed is that a bit of the time, people will try to start debates, take up the pro side of their resolution, and then try to dump Burden of Proof on their opponent. I have never heard of a debate format where the one OPPOSED to the resolution must prove that the resolution is false, rather then the one IN FAVOR of the resolution must SUPPORT and DEFEND their resolution from attack. In fact, in debate, that's part of Prima Facie burden. Pro gets the chance to set the terms of the debate, frame it, and the first chance to make their point, thus setting down what can be talked about and brought forth in the debate. In exchange, the Pro MUST be more convincing then the Con, and if the two sides are judged equal, the win goes to Con. I would just like to see less of this , at least what I see it as, Dirty Trick, and more debaters willing to actually defend their resolutions.

It is important to fully read any debate before accepting it to understand exactly what each person's burden is. As a debate site, we try to be accommodating to as many possibilities as possible (that just rolls off the tongue weird). This means that Pro can set the BoP on Con, and if Con accepts it, then Con has accepted it. You'll see this a lot in religious debates, where someone creates a debate saying "prove to me God exists" (or does not exist).

I still think it's a dirty trick. Also, in the example given, the creator of the debate can then chose to be Con and then the BoP is still on the Pro.