Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

1+1=2. Therefore, the sky is blue.

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:09:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM, Daktoria wrote:
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?

Correct for it.

Point out that it's a red herring, and explain why it is irrelevant.
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:49:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM, Daktoria wrote:
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?

As a voter, I score debates based upon how "convincing" the argument was. Still, I do recognize it as a debate, and if stupidity is left unaddressed, then I consider the opposition guilty of the same stupidity.

A bevy of stupid comments like the OP would merit a (very) short response, but a response nonetheless. Once addressed, I would take into consideration how utterly inane the stupidity was to begin with, and it will negatively affect my perception and judgment of that side for the rest of the debate.

Bottom line, if unaddressed, with nothing else to go buy, "the sky is blue". The resolution is affirmed.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:52:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, you may be interested in reading a relevant, albeit tangential, debate on a similar topic. Given your proclivities, I would welcome your feedback on it, even though it was held several months ago.

http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:52:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM, Daktoria wrote:
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?

I save it for the weekly stupid
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

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
rajun
Posts: 346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 11:18:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM, Daktoria wrote:
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?

Correct the man. Point it out. Believe me, only a few read the debates thoroughly. So, point out in bold writing. Serious, dead serious here...
Only cool guys can see this....
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 11:52:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the opposing debater should correct the error, but he doesn't have to correct it in order to win the argument. In order for a debater to win an argument, he must make a prima facie case, one that stands on it's own before the opposition attacks it. Citing an irrelevancy does not make a case that stands on it's own. If a defense attorney argued, "My client could not have committed the murder. He's really good at baking cupcakes." the jury should not count it as a valid defense even if the prosecutor fails to cite the logical error. A juror or voter is supposed to bring basic knowledge to the judging process.

One debate strategy is to make dozens of arguments, some of them reasonable and some just silly. The overloaded opposition tends to focus on the reasonable arguments and leave it to the voters to throw out the nonsense. It's not good to do that. Short nonsense arguments ought to get short refutations, but it's a natural tendency to focus on the serious stuff.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 12:26:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 11:52:05 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think the opposing debater should correct the error, but he doesn't have to correct it in order to win the argument. In order for a debater to win an argument, he must make a prima facie case, one that stands on it's own before the opposition attacks it. Citing an irrelevancy does not make a case that stands on it's own. If a defense attorney argued, "My client could not have committed the murder. He's really good at baking cupcakes." the jury should not count it as a valid defense even if the prosecutor fails to cite the logical error. A juror or voter is supposed to bring basic knowledge to the judging process.

One debate strategy is to make dozens of arguments, some of them reasonable and some just silly. The overloaded opposition tends to focus on the reasonable arguments and leave it to the voters to throw out the nonsense. It's not good to do that. Short nonsense arguments ought to get short refutations, but it's a natural tendency to focus on the serious stuff.

So if pro makes a clearly illogical case and con concedes that pro is right, con should still win?

Judge intervention is stupid.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 12:41:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 12:26:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
So if pro makes a clearly illogical case and con concedes that pro is right, con should still win?

Judge intervention is stupid.

If Pro' has the burden of proof and his case is not prima facie, then, yes, Con should win. Con can say nothing and win. Your objection is not that the intervention is stupid, your objection is that the intervention is smart, and that smart is unfair.

There was a court case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. It later came out that the defendant was actually in jail in another state at the time of the murder. I say he had to be let go, even though he conceded.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 4:03:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 12:41:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/29/2013 12:26:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
So if pro makes a clearly illogical case and con concedes that pro is right, con should still win?

Judge intervention is stupid.

If Pro' has the burden of proof and his case is not prima facie, then, yes, Con should win. Con can say nothing and win. Your objection is not that the intervention is stupid, your objection is that the intervention is smart, and that smart is unfair.

There was a court case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. It later came out that the defendant was actually in jail in another state at the time of the murder. I say he had to be let go, even though he conceded.

Court cases and debates are two very different things. Jury's are evaluating the facts of the case, debate judges are evaluating the performance of the debaters.

That of course depends on your view of how to judge a debate, but what you are suggesting gives too much room for judges to chose a side simply because they agree with the position. The debaters can only address the arguments made by their opponents, not the opinions of whomever comes along and reads the debate.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 9:36:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 4:03:14 AM, Double_R wrote:
Court cases and debates are two very different things. Jury's are evaluating the facts of the case, debate judges are evaluating the performance of the debaters.

That of course depends on your view of how to judge a debate, but what you are suggesting gives too much room for judges to chose a side simply because they agree with the position. The debaters can only address the arguments made by their opponents, not the opinions of whomever comes along and reads the debate.

It does depend upon one's view of debate. You give the way academic debate is judged. In an academic debate, the goal is to score points against an opponent according to a set of rules, not find out if the resolution is true. I think DDO should be about the truth of the resolution, because that's the skill needed in the real world.

Suppose the resolution is "The moon is made of green cheese." Pro makes five arguments supporting the proposition, then Con ignores all of Pro's arguments and simply gives the result of a NASA report saying it's rock. Pro points out that NASA is completely biased on the issue, having long ago gone on record in favor of the rock theory. Con ignores Pro's criticism of NASA and reasserts that the moon is rock, based upon the NASA analysis of data. Con cites a variety of sources, notable several criticizing NASA's reliability. Under academic rules, Pro should win by virtue of Con having dropped 90% of Pro's arguments, so the arguments stand. Pro was the better debater, by virtue of having made unrebutted arguments while systematically attacking Con's single argument.

When I've made this argument before, and one response is that academic judges could find a way for Con to win, by properly evaluating the quality of sources. In doing so, they bring independent knowledge to the debate, giving more weight to traditional science than to the Green Cheese Society. But are they then breaking the rules simply because the resolution is so outrageously silly?

The alternate viewpoint is that a DDO debate should be more like a jury trial, in which the goal is to find the truth. A trial is scored by whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, not by whether the lawyer for the defendant was a better lawyer than the prosecution's lawyer. The prosecutor may bumble through the trial, but if he's got the defendant's fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene then the jury ought to convict. The trial is about the truth of the resolution "The defendant is guilty" and not about which lawyer was the better lawyer.

In a trial, a guilty defendant can be found not guilty because the prosecutor didn't present enough evidence -- even though the evidence may exist outside of what was presented in the courtroom. Jurors have to judge solely on what was presented, and not, for example, what is in news stories not introduced in the trial. However, jurors bring with them and use their knowledge relevant to weighing what was presented. That's their job as jurors.

This is a fine point of judging debates. Most of the time, the winner will be the same whether one thinks the truth of the resolution is being judged or debater performance is being judged. The resolution fails if the burden of proof is not met based on what's presented in the debate, and a poor debater is likely not to have presented a convincing case. Nonetheless, I think that DDO better serves it's members by adopting truthseeking as the goal. Truth is what's important in jury trials, elections, business decisions, and important life decisions.

Academic debate pretty much has to focus on the debater's performance rather than on whether the resolution is true. Debaters have to debate both sides, and its all about individual performance. The real world is very different. Brilliant performances get politicians elected and business people promoted, but truth ultimately rules. What succeeds and fails is what's important. DDO should reflect the real world.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 11:25:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 10:52:22 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM, Daktoria wrote:
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?

I save it for the weekly stupid
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 3:43:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:25:08 AM, Daktoria wrote:
When you're reading a debate and someone proposes disconnected facts that lead to a conclusion, do you expect the opposition to correct someone, or do you just judge someone as disconnected?

You just play them off as idiots or you troll that debate.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~