Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What is the point of setting rules?

BornToDebate
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:55:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My opponent lawyered and used semantics to wint his debate: http://www.debate.org...

Yet this broke their rule number 2 and they said anyone who breaks rules should have all 7 points awarded to their opponent.

Isn't it therefore correct that I should win or do I have a misconception of what lawyering is?
dilfilly fung fing
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.
BornToDebate
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 5:59:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.

What is lawyering?
dilfilly fung fing
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:24:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 5:59:33 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.

What is lawyering?

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

This is a perfect example.
BornToDebate
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:34:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:24:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:59:33 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.

What is lawyering?

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

This is a perfect example.

He used more sources than you did.
dilfilly fung fing
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:55:10 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
My opponent lawyered and used semantics to wint his debate: http://www.debate.org...

Yet this broke their rule number 2 and they said anyone who breaks rules should have all 7 points awarded to their opponent.

Isn't it therefore correct that I should win or do I have a misconception of what lawyering is?

He didn't lawyer. He clarified the rules. You failed to understand them. You also made no good arguments and broke the conduct rules. Fairly open and shut.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Placing a definition in the final round of the debate and changing the entire focus?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:34:02 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:24:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:59:33 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.

What is lawyering?

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

This is a perfect example.

He used more sources than you did.

So?

I changed the debate to be about soccer... instead of American football. That was lawyering.
Subutai
Posts: 3,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:51:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You have a misconception of what lawyering is...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:16:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:16:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:34:02 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:24:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:59:33 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.

What is lawyering?

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

This is a perfect example.

He used more sources than you did.

So?

I changed the debate to be about soccer... instead of American football. That was lawyering.

Lawyering would be claiming that since Alabama is a state it cant play football....
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
BornToDebate
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:51:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
You have a misconception of what lawyering is...

You have a misconception of what a straight line is.
dilfilly fung fing
Subutai
Posts: 3,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:33:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 10:42:51 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:51:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
You have a misconception of what lawyering is...

You have a misconception of what a straight line is.

You are just narrowminded on geometry.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:17:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:16:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 7/27/2013 7:16:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:34:02 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:24:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:59:33 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:58:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Lawyering and using semantics in a way that violates his rule #2 has to be done so the change the framework of the debate.

All he did was give examples for his case.

What is lawyering?

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

This is a perfect example.

He used more sources than you did.

So?

I changed the debate to be about soccer... instead of American football. That was lawyering.

Lawyering would be claiming that since Alabama is a state it cant play football....

HAHA, I didn't even think about doing that.

I thought my soccer ploy was pretty good though.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 4:09:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:55:10 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
My opponent lawyered and used semantics to wint his debate:

No he didn't. You took a debate you thought was a gimmee, because you didn't know about non-Euclidean geometry. He proved you were wrong. The fact that you still don't know you were wrong may mean he didn't explain all that clearly, but it doesn't mean you were right.

I'll tell you a story. Not sure of my source, probably Asimov, probably writing in the science fact column in, I don't know, Astounding Science Fiction? Maybe in the fifties or sixties? These columns were collected in books like The Left Hand of the Electron, and I probably read it one of those.

The story:

Euclid collected and organized some axioms, revolutionized geometry. We still used his book when I was in high school.

One of Euclid's axioms is as follows: "Between any two points, there is one single straight line, neither more nor less." (I'm telling this story from memory, and my memory is clearly faulty. That is, I just went to Wikipedia, and I find no Euclidean axiom remotely like this. This doesn't affect the truthiness or importance of my story. Anyone familiar with the story, even my distorted version of it, knows, just from reading the title of your debate, that you took a sucker bet.)

Axioms are supposed to be axiomatic, but the above axiom bothered people. Over the centuries, they kept trying to demote it by proving it from the other axioms.

Finally, somebody thought of a different way of proving the suspect axiom. He would assume that it was false: He would assume that there are an infinite number of straight lines between any two points. From that perverse axiom, he would develop a system of geometry. That perverse new system would prove to contradict itself, and thus our hero would have proved Euclid's version of the axiom.

Didn't work. He came up with an entire functional system of geometry. It didn't seem to describe anything in the real world, but it didn't contradict itself either.

Then Einstein came along, and suddenly there was a subject matter (curved space in the expanding universe) described by this new geometry. It wasn't just non-contradictory; it was a description of the real world.

So another guy tried the same experiment, except he assumed that there are no straight lines between two points. His geometry worked too. And it is useful for describing big crunch universes. It too is the appropriate tool for describing aspects of the real world. Phrased differently: it is also true.

So, upon seeing the title of your debate, "The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line," anyone familiar with non-Euclidean geometry will think, "That's not true."

I'm guessing that were confused by Con's illustration involving the surface of a sphere. You were right about a chord penetrating the sphere would be shorter than a geodesic line on the surface of the sphere. But, in non-Euclidean geometry, when space itself is distorted, there won't really be such such a shortcut.

Thus, there are real-world circumstances in which the resolution is false. No matter how many times you debated that resolution, and regardless of the debating styles of your opponents, you should expect to lose every time.

So, he didn't cheat. You were just wrong.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 5:03:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:55:10 PM, BornToDebate wrote:
My opponent lawyered and used semantics to wint his debate: http://www.debate.org...

Yet this broke their rule number 2 and they said anyone who breaks rules should have all 7 points awarded to their opponent.

Isn't it therefore correct that I should win or do I have a misconception of what lawyering is?

He didn't use semantics. Semantics is when you argue over word rather than a concept. Providing a definition is not semantics, but rather a protection against semantics.

For example,
If Pro said "Libertarians advocate liberalized markets", and Con refuted the claim by stating "Liberals advocate government intervention". The term "Liberal" is used differently by Pro, so Con's point does not refute what Pro was actually saying. Liberal markets is synonymous with Free Trade, and refers to classic liberalism not modern liberalism, therefore Con was using semantics. If Pro gave a definition for his usage of the word liberal, than Con would not be able to use semantics.

Your rebuttal was completely lacking, and that is why you lost. Not to mention your complete and utter lack of sources.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle