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

Misleading debate titles!

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 12:17:41 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Normally when I see 'drugs should be legalized, I presume that the instigator should be Pro, as the title 'drugs should be legalized' suggests they are for it. But 5/10 they're con! If they're con, why don't they say 'drug's SHOULDN'T be legalized'. It would make the website so much easier to use!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 12:23:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I wouldn't deign to condescend to you by changing this habit. I will continue to assume you are intelligent enough to figure out my stance based on my opening argument.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 1:22:25 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I know how to tell which side your on AFTER i've read the thing. i just think if you take pro, put in in a pro stance, similarly if you are con.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 2:27:52 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
CON should be disabled for the instigator. Thank you for reiterating the point that if one truly wants to start against his own resolution, he should just reverse the resolution.

And if someone says that if the instigator is CON he does not hold the burden of proof, you are wrong. The instigator always holds the burden of proof.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 2:48:35 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
And if someone says that if the instigator is CON he does not hold the burden of proof, you are wrong. The instigator always holds the burden of proof.

Not in logic.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 4:48:11 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 2:48:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And if someone says that if the instigator is CON he does not hold the burden of proof, you are wrong. The instigator always holds the burden of proof.

Not in logic.

Well, to be honest, I believe both debaters hold an equal burden, but if someone insists that only one person hold a burden, it is most definitely the instigator.

There is no reason for him not to.

You should not be able to instigate as CON, and then claim your opponent must fulfill his burden in R2.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:03:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
As for my actual opinion though, I believe both debaters hold a burden of proof, either in proving or disproving the resolution. The "burden of proof" lies in any statement that is controversial. See my debate on the issue: http://www.debate.org...
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:09:30 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I was under the impression that winning a debate on this website does not make what you say necessarily true.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:11:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 4:48:11 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
At 11/12/2008 2:48:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And if someone says that if the instigator is CON he does not hold the burden of proof, you are wrong. The instigator always holds the burden of proof.

Not in logic.

Well, to be honest, I believe both debaters hold an equal burden, but if someone insists that only one person hold a burden, it is most definitely the instigator.

There is no reason for him not to.

You should not be able to instigate as CON, and then claim your opponent must fulfill his burden in R2.

Why not? In logic, the one stating "X statement is true" has the burden of proof. Otherwise one would be obliged to accept the existence of pink fluffy unicorns unless one had scoured the earth for them.

Further, accepting such a debate constitutes accepting the burden. If you see the instigator is Con, and you don't want the burden, don't take it.

The "burden of proof" lies in any statement that is controversial.
The fundamental statement that is "Controversial" in the debate is the resolution. It is Pro who "makes" that statement, and must defend it. It is therefore he who has the burden of proof in respect to that statement.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:12:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 5:09:30 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
I was under the impression that winning a debate on this website does not make what you say necessarily true.

Due to the nature of voting on debate.org, it would seem that interpretation of Burden of Proof belongs to the voter.

You could ignore burden of proof if you are not the instigator, but that may harm you with some voters.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:15:50 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Why can't the person saying "X statement is false" hold the burden?

Also, the person saying that is really saying "-X statement is true".

Because every resolution can be reversed, only allowing the instigator to be pro will not harm or limit debate in any way, and thus should be enacted.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:25:31 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 5:15:50 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
Why can't the person saying "X statement is false" hold the burden?

Because they aren't necessarily saying that. All they are saying is that "x statement is 'not to be accepted,' i.e., not demonstrated to be true, not a good position, not supported by good logic." One does not need to know personally that there are no unicorns on the planet Xenon to know that someone who claims there are is full of *bleep*.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:39:47 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Like Brad, I place burden on both debaters. I want PRO to affirm the resolution, and CON to negate it.

For example, let's say that te topic is "Ghosts are real."

PRO: "I saw one in my basement last night"
CON: "PRO's testimony cannot be trusted, since he is participating in a debate on the topic and is therefore likely to lie about what he has seen. He also cannot prove to us that he saw ghosts."

At this point, CON has addressed the entirety of PRO's argument, but CON hasn't said anything that argues against the resolution. At this point, a rational undecided voter with only basic knowledge of the subject of hand would still be completely undecided. That is because there are NO arguments by either party that address the resolution. Thus, when it comes to most convincing arguments, I would have to call it a tie.

Rather, I would expect CON to make arguments showing how unlikely it is for ghosts to exist. That is because his position is the negative of the resolution - "Ghosts do not exist."
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:44:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 5:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/12/2008 5:15:50 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
Why can't the person saying "X statement is false" hold the burden?

Because they aren't necessarily saying that. All they are saying is that "x statement is 'not to be accepted,' i.e., not demonstrated to be true, not a good position, not supported by good logic." One does not need to know personally that there are no unicorns on the planet Xenon to know that someone who claims there are is full of *bleep*.
But CON on "There are unicorns on the planet Xenon" still has a job to do. S/he has to show how unlikely that statement is. S/he has to offer evidence, testimony, or reasoning that contradicts the resolution, and leads to the resolution being unlikely.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:48:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 4:48:11 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
Well, to be honest, I believe both debaters hold an equal burden, but if someone insists that only one person hold a burden, it is most definitely the instigator.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:49:00 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 5:44:28 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 11/12/2008 5:25:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/12/2008 5:15:50 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
Why can't the person saying "X statement is false" hold the burden?

Because they aren't necessarily saying that. All they are saying is that "x statement is 'not to be accepted,' i.e., not demonstrated to be true, not a good position, not supported by good logic." One does not need to know personally that there are no unicorns on the planet Xenon to know that someone who claims there are is full of *bleep*.
But CON on "There are unicorns on the planet Xenon" still has a job to do. S/he has to show how unlikely that statement is. S/he has to offer evidence, testimony, or reasoning that contradicts the resolution, and leads to the resolution being unlikely.

When you destroy the epistemic base of the position, you have debated away the position, regardless of whether it's proven. To be precisely "undecided" as to flights of fancy is not a great idea :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 4:11:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/12/2008 12:17:41 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Normally when I see 'drugs should be legalized, I presume that the instigator should be Pro, as the title 'drugs should be legalized' suggests they are for it. But 5/10 they're con! If they're con, why don't they say 'drug's SHOULDN'T be legalized'. It would make the website so much easier to use!

This is history right here.
Meh!