Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Burden of proof

qopel
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:05:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have created several debates where the opponents have accepted full burden of proof, yet the voters don't seem to understand what that means. They vote against me because I dismissed arguments that were not relevant.

When someone accepts the full burden of proof, that puts me in the default position of winning the debate until evidence is provided otherwise. If an argument is presented that has nothing to do with proving the topic of the debate, I do not have to counter that argument. Not responding to an argument isn't an automatic concede of the debate, because the burden of proof is not on me to counter anything that isn't providing evidence for the debate topic.

It's like when you are in a court house. The prosecution has the burden of proof to find guilt. The defendant doesn't have to argue at all, because the defendant doesn't have to prove himself innocent. He's already innocent until proved guilty.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:24:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I did some research, and found that someone's beliefs prior to reading a debate could be used to accurately predict whom they voted for 81% of the time.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:39:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:05:19 AM, qopel wrote:
I have created several debates where the opponents have accepted full burden of proof, yet the voters don't seem to understand what that means. They vote against me because I dismissed arguments that I thought were not relevant.

^ fixed it. You left out that part before.

When someone accepts the full burden of proof, that puts me in the default position of winning the debate until evidence is provided otherwise.

unless you absurdly abuse the burden of proof you put on them to semantically win the debate....

If an argument is presented that has nothing to do with proving the topic of the debate, I do not have to counter that argument. Not responding to an argument isn't an automatic concede of the debate, because the burden of proof is not on me to counter anything that isn't providing evidence for the debate topic.

But its not your call to dismiss arguments that arent relevant just because you think so. You have to make the case to the voters on why the argument doesnt apply to the debate topic, and if you dont then it is implied that you have no counter-argument, so then the argument is dropped...

It's like when you are in a court house. The prosecution has the burden of proof to find guilt. The defendant doesn't have to argue at all, because the defendant doesn't have to prove himself innocent. He's already innocent until proved guilty.

But its slightly different on DDO because the benefit of the doubt doesnt always go to the 'defendant' 100% of the time. Both sides always in a debate always have a little burden of proof even if the other has most of it, its not 50-50 or all on one side while the other gets off scott free.
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
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:05:19 AM, qopel wrote:
I have created several debates where the opponents have accepted full burden of proof, yet the voters don't seem to understand what that means. They vote against me because I dismissed arguments that were not relevant.

It's not enough to dismiss them as irrelevant. You have to give good arguments for WHY they are irrelevant. Either that, or you have to show the flaws in them. It's not enough to say, "Nuh uh!" The reason people keep voting against you is that your responses (or non-responses) are not adequate to refute the arguments.

When someone accepts the full burden of proof, that puts me in the default position of winning the debate until evidence is provided otherwise.

If somebody offers arguments, you have to SHOW that the argument is fallacious. It's not enough to dismiss it with "Nuh uh!"

If an argument is presented that has nothing to do with proving the topic of the debate, I do not have to counter that argument.

You can't ignore it. You have to explain why it's irrelevant. At the very least, you have to point out that the conclusion does not address the resolution of the debate.
"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
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 11:03:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Strange. When you've been told essentially the same thing by the voters in your debates, you've flown off the handle and made unreasonable demands and claims.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:47:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You draw vote-bombs like a lightning rod draws lightning, qopel. If people are so eager to vote-bomb you, they probably aren't eager---when it would be to your benefit---to grasp the subtleties of burden of proof.

I suggest niceness. As a for instance, no more debates called, "Are Christians insane?" And no more comments like, "You're a troll and a coward, just like all the other apologetic creationists. Get a life." Quit talking to people you want to insult. In short, be the sort of calm generous person that you admire.

It may take a while to work, after the start you've made. And the vote-bombs will never stop altogether---we all get vote-bombed---but it may eventually help.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:36:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A lot of the responses in this thread aren't helpful.

To understand debate, you have to understand how people treat defensiveness as a sign of weakness. Unless you're in the company of sympathetic personalities (which aren't very common here), you will be voted against because you appear weak. They enjoy being predatory and seeing you suffer despite making sense.

Another thing is people enjoy being irrational, deceptive, and sarcastic. If you're too honest, people won't care. The careless enjoy seeing the careful care in vain.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:37:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:48:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:05:19 AM, qopel wrote:
I have created several debates where the opponents have accepted full burden of proof, yet the voters don't seem to understand what that means. They vote against me because I dismissed arguments that were not relevant.

It's not enough to dismiss them as irrelevant. You have to give good arguments for WHY they are irrelevant. Either that, or you have to show the flaws in them. It's not enough to say, "Nuh uh!" The reason people keep voting against you is that your responses (or non-responses) are not adequate to refute the arguments.

When someone accepts the full burden of proof, that puts me in the default position of winning the debate until evidence is provided otherwise.

If somebody offers arguments, you have to SHOW that the argument is fallacious. It's not enough to dismiss it with "Nuh uh!"

If an argument is presented that has nothing to do with proving the topic of the debate, I do not have to counter that argument.

You can't ignore it. You have to explain why it's irrelevant. At the very least, you have to point out that the conclusion does not address the resolution of the debate.

Are you trolling?

The whole point of burden of proof is people not having to explain irrelevance. People have to explain relevance.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, as a judge, I take personal offense when people claim irrelevance. Just because someone claims something's irrelevant doesn't make is so.

Judges can see irrelevance for themselves, and if anything, judges should point out irrelevance so the opposition isn't harassed by them.

The problem is many people judge without reference to irrelevance. If someone makes an irrelevant point, but the opposition doesn't point it out, the point maker scores.

It's retarded really.
qopel
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 12:47:47 AM, wiploc wrote:


I suggest niceness. As a for instance, no more debates called, "Are Christians insane?"

What's wrong with asking that? When people claim to talk to something that doesn't exist, and get answers back, what do you think that is? Sane and rational?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 3:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:37:22 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:48:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:05:19 AM, qopel wrote:
I have created several debates where the opponents have accepted full burden of proof, yet the voters don't seem to understand what that means. They vote against me because I dismissed arguments that were not relevant.

It's not enough to dismiss them as irrelevant. You have to give good arguments for WHY they are irrelevant. Either that, or you have to show the flaws in them. It's not enough to say, "Nuh uh!" The reason people keep voting against you is that your responses (or non-responses) are not adequate to refute the arguments.

When someone accepts the full burden of proof, that puts me in the default position of winning the debate until evidence is provided otherwise.

If somebody offers arguments, you have to SHOW that the argument is fallacious. It's not enough to dismiss it with "Nuh uh!"

If an argument is presented that has nothing to do with proving the topic of the debate, I do not have to counter that argument.

You can't ignore it. You have to explain why it's irrelevant. At the very least, you have to point out that the conclusion does not address the resolution of the debate.

Are you trolling?

The whole point of burden of proof is people not having to explain irrelevance. People have to explain relevance.

Correct, but if the person with BoP DOES explain relevance, loo even if their explanation is poor, then it is up to the other party to explain why. Otherwise they can dismiss any argument with "nuh uh", even if it's valid
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
qopel
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 7:07:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 3:17:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Correct, but if the person with BoP DOES explain relevance, loo even if their explanation is poor, then it is up to the other party to explain why. Otherwise they can dismiss any argument with "nuh uh", even if it's valid

nuh uh
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:10:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:07:28 PM, qopel wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:17:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Correct, but if the person with BoP DOES explain relevance, loo even if their explanation is poor, then it is up to the other party to explain why. Otherwise they can dismiss any argument with "nuh uh", even if it's valid

nuh uh

And this is why you lose your debates. You have no argument, here; as such, it is a WORSE argument than that which you try to rebut.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!