Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Who Should Win This Debate?

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 7:21:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Say someone proposes sensibly.

Then, another opposes insensibly.

After, someone counters insensibly.

Lastly, another counters sensibly.

For example, someone could say, "The sky is blue," and then another could say, "No, the sky is red."

Then, someone says that, "Blue is radiates at 450 Thz, and the sky radiates at that frequency, so the sky is blue."

However, another correctly points out, "No, blue radiates at 650 Thz. 450 Thz is red."

Who should win the debate?
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 10:03:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I were reading this debate, I would say the person arguing the sky is red would win.

If we just look at the facts laid out without outside knowledge, the red side is better orienting the facts to prove their case.

As a judge I see the errors being made, but a debate is judged based on who presented a better case, not on who is right.

I mean really, would you say the side that couldn't even prove the sky is blue deserves to WIN?
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 5:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 10:03:40 AM, Raisor wrote:
If I were reading this debate, I would say the person arguing the sky is red would win.

If we just look at the facts laid out without outside knowledge, the red side is better orienting the facts to prove their case.

As a judge I see the errors being made, but a debate is judged based on who presented a better case, not on who is right.

I mean really, would you say the side that couldn't even prove the sky is blue deserves to WIN?

I'd say the red side behaved provocatively and deserves to lose on conduct. The blue side was exhausted from harassment of something that was insensible. Debate is a qualitative, not quantitative, exercise of attention span, so the blue side shouldn't need to have an attention span that deals with the red side's insensibility.

If this is wrong, then we're basically saying that people are entitled to utter nonsense on purpose just to obstructively wear others out in order to win rather than constructing something sensible.