Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Rules Questions

Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 11:55:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is the "Resolution" necessarily also the title of the debate?

I understood that the "resolution" of a debate would be spelled out in R1, as the "Opening Argument." The debate title, I thought, was a lot of the time only the name of the debate.

This is an important question for me - because I am being accused of trying to "change" the resolution of a debate from the title - because I ignored the title and argued against the Opening Argument. I did that so that the resolution that I am challenging agrees with the language in the Opening Argument.

Do I need to change the way I've been thinking about the Title/Resolution?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 12:10:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 11:55:11 AM, Beverlee wrote:
Is the "Resolution" necessarily also the title of the debate?

Not necessarily, but usually if it's done properly. You might make the debate title "gay marriage", but put the resolution as "Gay marriage should be legal". If you don't specifically add the resolution in, it would be assumed that you're debating for or against gay marriage, which is somewhat ambiguous, so you probably shouldn't do that.

I understood that the "resolution" of a debate would be spelled out in R1, as the "Opening Argument." The debate title, I thought, was a lot of the time only the name of the debate.

The resolution isn't just the opening argument, if that's what you're saying. It's the statement under which the two participants will debate over throughout the entire debate. It's also the basis for how viewers judge who won the debate depending on which side did best to defend/negate it. The reason I underline "statement" is because it can't be put in the form of a question such as "should gay marriage be illegal?" as many people do.


This is an important question for me - because I am being accused of trying to "change" the resolution of a debate from the title - because I ignored the title and argued against the Opening Argument. I did that so that the resolution that I am challenging agrees with the language in the Opening Argument.

Generally you should assume that the title of the debate is the resolution or at least the main issue of the debate. If there's no specifically stated resolution in the opening round, usually it's your burden to either affirm what's in the title or refute your opponents arguments for it. So if the title is "Gay marriage" (however vague that may be) you're either arguing in favor or against gay marriage, not just against the instigators opening argument. If you think the instigator's opening arguments are complete bunk, he's still able to bring up new ones latter.

Do I need to change the way I've been thinking about the Title/Resolution?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 12:18:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If it's the debate I'm thinking of, you most certainly DID change the resolution of the debate. Pro's opening case did include a statement that you summarized, and turned into the "new" resolution, but it was clearly not the resolution under consideration. I don't know if, considering your opponent didn't really contest it strongly, I'd find it as problematic as others, but I would still agree you reframed it. (In my opinion, and just my opinion, I think that it does not warrant conduct and, since your opponent didn't contest the reframing, should stand...but that's just my opinion).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 2:26:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 12:18:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
If it's the debate I'm thinking of, you most certainly DID change the resolution of the debate. Pro's opening case did include a statement that you summarized, and turned into the "new" resolution, but it was clearly not the resolution under consideration. I don't know if, considering your opponent didn't really contest it strongly, I'd find it as problematic as others, but I would still agree you reframed it. (In my opinion, and just my opinion, I think that it does not warrant conduct and, since your opponent didn't contest the reframing, should stand...but that's just my opinion).

Yeah, that is the debate I'm talking about.I really wasn't trying to change the resolution, but I did need to reframe it in terms that were more beneficial to my side. Framing is different from changing - because it only alters the context that the resolution will be debated in (it "frames" it). So in my case, we were either A) talking about whether or not ANY positive actions happened as a result of Hitler's leadership, or B) whether the specific positives Pro raised were really positive or not.

So my strategy was to A) reframe the debate to include the crimes committed by the Third Reich, and B) Answer the title part of the debate by arguing that nothing positive for -German militarism- or -Hitler politically- was positive from the perspective of anyone.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 2:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 12:10:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/8/2013 11:55:11 AM, Beverlee wrote:
Is the "Resolution" necessarily also the title of the debate?

Not necessarily, but usually if it's done properly. You might make the debate title "gay marriage", but put the resolution as "Gay marriage should be legal". If you don't specifically add the resolution in, it would be assumed that you're debating for or against gay marriage, which is somewhat ambiguous, so you probably shouldn't do that.

I understood that the "resolution" of a debate would be spelled out in R1, as the "Opening Argument." The debate title, I thought, was a lot of the time only the name of the debate.

The resolution isn't just the opening argument, if that's what you're saying. It's the statement under which the two participants will debate over throughout the entire debate. It's also the basis for how viewers judge who won the debate depending on which side did best to defend/negate it. The reason I underline "statement" is because it can't be put in the form of a question such as "should gay marriage be illegal?" as many people do.


This is an important question for me - because I am being accused of trying to "change" the resolution of a debate from the title - because I ignored the title and argued against the Opening Argument. I did that so that the resolution that I am challenging agrees with the language in the Opening Argument.

Generally you should assume that the title of the debate is the resolution or at least the main issue of the debate. If there's no specifically stated resolution in the opening round, usually it's your burden to either affirm what's in the title or refute your opponents arguments for it. So if the title is "Gay marriage" (however vague that may be) you're either arguing in favor or against gay marriage, not just against the instigators opening argument. If you think the instigator's opening arguments are complete bunk, he's still able to bring up new ones latter.

Do I need to change the way I've been thinking about the Title/Resolution?

Ok, thank you - this is what I was looking for pretty much. It was my job to negate the resolution, and part of this was forcing Pro to clarify it in the first round. I wanted to aggressively cement her resolution, which was confusing. It was either A) something good happened in Nazi held territories 'at all' or B)Hitler was a good leader for Germany, who had a bad side. I wanted to pin this down, and fix her to just one specific argument if I could, so that way I would know what to try and negate.

But this meant that, almost no matter what, I would have to 'drop' some premise - because her argument did not obviously seem to be connected to the title of the debate. So if I argued against her Opening argument, which I ended up doing, I would ignore the title. If I tried to negate the title, I would have to drop the Opening Argument.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:34:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...

The title is, "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides." That seems to be the resolution, since Pro's OP doesn't offer an alternative resolution.

Pro's OP does address the title/resolution, since it lists good things that happened under Hitler.

You tried to change the resolution to, "Hitler should be respected as a great patriot and leader, despite the horrors of WWII." That's a huge change from what was actually being debated.

If you'd tried to change, "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides," to, "Adolf Hitler's government accomplished at least one good thing," then I don't think anyone would have protested. But your change wasn't a rephrasing, it was a radical change in meaning.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:23:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:34:18 AM, wiploc wrote:
Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...

The title is, "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides." That seems to be the resolution, since Pro's OP doesn't offer an alternative resolution.

Pro's OP does address the title/resolution, since it lists good things that happened under Hitler.

You tried to change the resolution to, "Hitler should be respected as a great patriot and leader, despite the horrors of WWII." That's a huge change from what was actually being debated.

If you'd tried to change, "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides," to, "Adolf Hitler's government accomplished at least one good thing," then I don't think anyone would have protested. But your change wasn't a rephrasing, it was a radical change in meaning.

Well - yeah but Pro did not list any positives, or good aspects of Hitler 'a government. She listed horrible things about his government, and simply positioned them as "positives." Nazi ideology, the Greater German Reich, and overall Hitlerian governance were never made a subject. The entire OA was praise for Hitler the man and leader. That led me to believe the debate was centered over Hitler the man - not Germany the state.

Moreover, even if I had misinterpreted the resolution - I still would have been required to address the premise that Hitler was a great patriot and skillful leader who built a successful track record as leader. If an error happened here, it was only a cataloging mistake; I mislabeled that part of the argument. I still could not have ignored it.

Effectively, what was being presented was "Hitlers government did not have only negative sides - a positive attribute of the Third Reich was Hitler himself, a great patriot and leader who successfully steered Germany into prosperity" or some such.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So let's keep thinking about this: I still want to review.

I saw the resolution differently than some - believing myself to be debating Hitler's successes - which were described as "positives" for Germany. When I stated this position clearly in my acceptance round, I was not corrected - so the matter was dropped. I'm not really worried about the scoring thing - that's just part of the game. I always sucked at the rules in high school when I was on the debate team, NBD.

What I wanted to know was whether or not I got away with something that my opponent just didn't catch me doing. Because that's not fair for me to do to her.

The question I need resolved is: is the title NECESSARILY identical to the resolution, or is the resolution an interpretable component of the Opening Argument? There was very little in the OA that would lead someone to think that we were having a semantic debate over something silly - like did anything good happen in Nazi Germany? (Such as birthday parties, weddings, happy moments and the like.) Everything important that I saw in the OA was geared away from that... And towards the idea that HITLER had positive sides which he passed on to Germany thru his leadership.

I'll have to see who said it, but someone said here that I should assume the resolution is in the Title, but if a disagreement exists between the title and the OA, then we go with the OA. (I think is what they said.)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The title of the debate is not necessarily the resolution. The title is limited to some small number of characters, so it is often not possible to fit the resolution into the title space. However, the Instigator has an obligation to make the resolution clear in the posted challenge. If it isn't clear, the Challenger is free to argue what the resolution means, and a late explanation of what was intended isn't persuasive. Since words get meaning through context, the posted challenge should usually cite something -- news articles, Wikipedia, blog pieces -- that define what the issue is. The point is make it clear what the debate is about. Arguing a position comes later.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:55:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:41:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The title of the debate is not necessarily the resolution. The title is limited to some small number of characters, so it is often not possible to fit the resolution into the title space. However, the Instigator has an obligation to make the resolution clear in the posted challenge. If it isn't clear, the Challenger is free to argue what the resolution means, and a late explanation of what was intended isn't persuasive. Since words get meaning through context, the posted challenge should usually cite something -- news articles, Wikipedia, blog pieces -- that define what the issue is. The point is make it clear what the debate is about. Arguing a position comes later.

Okay, this is exactly what my understanding is. My Hitler debate is an example of how this looks in practice. Here is another debate, where the resolution differs from the title, but is clarified. This clarification solves a lot of ambiguity. http://www.debate.org... So in my debate, a wide, sweeping title does not appear (to me) to represent the actual resolution in question. Likewise, In this other debate, a sweeping title is focused in the OA. So in the second example, "Homosexuality should be accepted by everyone" is altered in the OA significantly, by the instigator. In this case, we go with the OA (or the framing and interpretation of it).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 11:02:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:34:18 AM, wiploc wrote:
Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...

The title is, "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides." That seems to be the resolution, since Pro's OP doesn't offer an alternative resolution.

Pro's OP does address the title/resolution, since it lists good things that happened under Hitler.

You tried to change the resolution to, "Hitler should be respected as a great patriot and leader, despite the horrors of WWII." That's a huge change from what was actually being debated.

If you'd tried to change, "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides," to, "Adolf Hitler's government accomplished at least one good thing," then I don't think anyone would have protested. But your change wasn't a rephrasing, it was a radical change in meaning.
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
11/14/2013 11:04:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:23:15 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 11/12/2013 12:34:18 AM, wiploc wrote:

Well - yeah but Pro did not list any positives, or good aspects of Hitler 'a government. She listed horrible things about his government, and simply positioned them as "positives." Nazi ideology, the Greater German Reich, and overall Hitlerian governance were never made a subject. The entire OA was praise for Hitler the man and leader. That led me to believe the debate was centered over Hitler the man - not Germany the state.

Sigh. You are at this point ignoring the positives that PRO did list in the debate. My RFD is clear, and it only took one positive to affirm the resolution, and PRO had at least one that survived cross-examination.
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
11/14/2013 11:18:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:51:29 PM, Beverlee wrote:

The question I need resolved is: is the title NECESSARILY identical to the resolution, or is the resolution an interpretable component of the Opening Argument? There was very little in the OA that would lead someone to think that we were having a semantic debate over something silly - like did anything good happen in Nazi Germany? (Such as birthday parties, weddings, happy moments and the like.) Everything important that I saw in the OA was geared away from that... And towards the idea that HITLER had positive sides which he passed on to Germany thru his leadership.

1) Some resolutions are verbose and are contingent upon several conditionals, for example, a syllogism with 3 necessary premises and the conclusion being the resolution would not fit in the title.

IMHO in this debate the resolution was clear (outside of minor grammatical issues).

2) The resolution, if not defined properly, is indeed subject to interpretation. I did not see the definitions of the words in the resolution being contested...rather you sought to pick out which part of PRO's round #1 you wanted to debate, all the while ignoring the title of the debate, which was a rather clear, debatable resolution.

---

Anyway, I thought you did a good job in painting Hitler's government in a very negative light...but that's not what the debate was about, IMHO...it was about whether or not Hitler's government had ANY positives, that it had SOMETHING OTHER THAN negatives, i.e. "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides."

Some resolutions are extremely easy to meet BoP, and IMHO this resolution was one of them.
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
11/14/2013 11:37:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, an example of a syllogistic resolution:

Resolution:

Chinese internet users typically engage in bestiality.


This resolution doesn't make any real sense, until you consider the premises that make up the syllogism:

P1: An unofficial mascot for the Chinese government's internet censorship firewall is a "grass mud horse".
P2: For the purposes of this debate, every time a Chinese internet user attempts to circumvent this firewall, they are fvcking this grass mud horse.


These premises are critical to the resolution, but are too lengthy to fit in the title. Without the premises, one would dismiss P2, and PRO would have burden to prove that Chinese internet users typically have actual sex with animals on a regular basis, as opposed to the assumed figurative meaning.
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?
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 12:32:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My interpretation is defensible: that Hitler was a good leader, exempting the war and the holocaust. Therefore, his government reflected these positive attributes.

There was never any indication that we were debating some silly thing, like "were there happy children at birthday parties in Germany" or so forth.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:01:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 11:18:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
... IMHO...it was about whether or not Hitler's government had ANY positives, that it had SOMETHING OTHER THAN negatives, i.e. "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides."

Some resolutions are extremely easy to meet BoP, and IMHO this resolution was one of them.

I don't agree. If the debate were narrowly about any positives, then a win would be achieved by just pointing to the spiffy Nazi military uniforms, much improved over WWI pointy helmets. The opening argument made it clear it was not about any improvement, but rather about substantial positive aspects of Hitler leadership. For example, the common saying is that "Mussolini made the trains run on time." We are looking for something more substantial than that. For example, Pro argued that Hitler's leadership was responsible for extraordinary economic growth. Con provided evidence that grow was established before Hitler, and that it then slowed.

I think Pro might have won under a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, but Pro had the burden of proof and needed to establish that some important improvement was due to Hitler's leadership. Possibly "national unity" could have been proved. However Pro only made a list of assertions, with no data or expert opinion to back them up. The problem for Pro was identifying and proving what was due to Hitler rather than general German character, post WWI recovery, or previous leadership. Con didn't point out the distinction in each case, but made it clear in arguing the economics. I think that is enough to establish the general line of reasoning.

It's interesting how many DDO debates revolve around trying to figure out what the resolution really means. I concede there is lots of room for argument in this case.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 5:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:01:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:18:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
... IMHO...it was about whether or not Hitler's government had ANY positives, that it had SOMETHING OTHER THAN negatives, i.e. "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides."

Some resolutions are extremely easy to meet BoP, and IMHO this resolution was one of them.

I don't agree. If the debate were narrowly about any positives, then a win would be achieved by just pointing to the spiffy Nazi military uniforms, much improved over WWI pointy helmets.

I agree this would have been enough to meet BoP on the resolution, given that the improvements of these uniforms could be accredited to the Nazi regime (that's debatable since tailoring improvements are difficult to attribute to the Nazis specifically and not, say, a German fashion designer, and military improvements in helmet design may have been developed in France...regardless PRO did not make this point).

Another example of meeting BoP would have been if PRO discussed efficiencies in Nazi administration...perhaps fewer bureaucrats presiding over a larger economy or what not.

The opening argument made it clear it was not about any improvement, but rather about substantial positive aspects of Hitler leadership. For example, the common saying is that "Mussolini made the trains run on time." We are looking for something more substantial than that. For example, Pro argued that Hitler's leadership was responsible for extraordinary economic growth. Con provided evidence that grow was established before Hitler, and that it then slowed.

What is the difference between "any improvement" and "substantial positive aspects"?

I scored the debate, and noted that PRO discussed the autobahn. This alone was enough to score arguments for PRO, IMHO. CON's counter-point about infrastructure destruction did not directly address this point, was more relevant to wartime tactics, and did not address the autobahn's continued lasting existence and reputation. IMHO the autobahn is a "substantial, positive aspect" of the Nazi regime, and was unaddressed by CON.

I think Pro might have won under a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, but Pro had the burden of proof and needed to establish that some important improvement was due to Hitler's leadership. Possibly "national unity" could have been proved. However Pro only made a list of assertions, with no data or expert opinion to back them up. The problem for Pro was identifying and proving what was due to Hitler rather than general German character, post WWI recovery, or previous leadership. Con didn't point out the distinction in each case, but made it clear in arguing the economics. I think that is enough to establish the general line of reasoning.

I agree that had PRO focused only on economics, then CON's verbose and substantive rebuttal would have at the very least moved me to score arguments a tie...but PRO argued a myriad of points.

I also agree that PRO's argumentation was of relatively poor quality, and noted that in my RFD.

It's interesting how many DDO debates revolve around trying to figure out what the resolution really means. I concede there is lots of room for argument in this case.

The way I interpreted the resolution was that "negative sides" was a grammatically incorrect way of stating "negative aspects". The resolution would then revolve around whether or not there were ANY positive aspects of Hitler's administration. I maintain it is extremely easy to meet BoP for such a resolution.

I agree that given the structure of this debate (or rather lack of it), the resolution becomes subject to a good degree of interpretation...but not a wholesale re-characterization. This debate was NOT about whether or not overall Hitler's regime could be considered "positive".
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
11/14/2013 5:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 12:32:08 PM, Beverlee wrote:
My interpretation is defensible: that Hitler was a good leader, exempting the war and the holocaust. Therefore, his government reflected these positive attributes.

How is it in any way implied in the resolution that the debate was centered around Hitler being a "good leader"?

There was never any indication that we were debating some silly thing, like "were there happy children at birthday parties in Germany" or so forth.

If the Nazis were responsible for happy children, that would have upheld the resolution as stated. It IS a ridiculous resolution, multiple people noted this.
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
11/14/2013 5:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Only" is an extremely strong assertion, right up there with "All", "Never", "Always," and "None." Words like that in a resolution are close to indefensible.

This debate centered around a PRO position on "Not Only", i.e. an extremely weak assertion that is extremely easy to prove.
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
11/14/2013 5:17:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This debate reminds me of another one I scored a while back:

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

The resolution is IMHO clear that the PRO position is essentially against "no gun control", i.e. against a "none" argument. As is true for this Hitler debate, I was also the only one in the gun control debate to focus on this specific aspect of the language of the resolution, which in the case of the gun control debate, was EXACTLY proglib's intention.
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?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 10:43:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:55:46 AM, Beverlee wrote:
... In this other debate . . . "Homosexuality should be accepted by
everyone" is altered in the OA significantly, by the instigator. In this
case, we go with the OA (or the framing and interpretation of it).

The way I read it, the title is the resolution, and the OP doesn't modify that resolution, but merely lists four arguments that the instigator intends to use in support of that resolution.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 11:11:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 10:43:04 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:55:46 AM, Beverlee wrote:
... In this other debate . . . "Homosexuality should be accepted by
everyone" is altered in the OA significantly, by the instigator. In this
case, we go with the OA (or the framing and interpretation of it).

The way I read it, the title is the resolution, and the OP doesn't modify that resolution, but merely lists four arguments that the instigator intends to use in support of that resolution.

Oh I'm so glad you went and looked at that debate - so it don't sound so much like I'm whining! Lol...

Ok: so the title says that "homosexuality should be accepted by everyone," right? That sort of statement could mean that LGBT priorities should be forced on religious persons as well as everyone else. BUT, Pro states in R1:

I will be arguing in favor of:
-Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle.
-Homosexuals have the ability to effectively raise an adopted child.
-While a minority, Homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit.
-Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice.

...which is different. This statement does not require all humanity to accept all things gay. In this case, I see the resolution as being "homosexual persons have a viable life, can parent, and are a rare but normal part of the world."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 1:38:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 5:07:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/14/2013 4:01:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/14/2013 11:18:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
... IMHO...it was about whether or not Hitler's government had ANY positives, that it had SOMETHING OTHER THAN negatives, i.e. "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides."

I think the opening argument must be ignored to have that interpretation. You would agree that the debate would be a foolish waste of time with that interpretation, right? Whereas if taken in the context of the opening argument, it is a reasonable debate about the dimensions of Hitler's leadership. It asks, "Was Hitler anything more than an ideologue and brilliant propagandist?"
...
What is the difference between "any improvement" and "substantial positive aspects"?

What is the difference between "insubstantial" and "substantial"? It is up to the user to decide where the line is. Debate resolutions often refer to "substantially change" despite the problem of definition. The examples Pro gave in the opening argument set the bar high because he claimed extraordinary achievements of leadership.

This is a classical problem of definition, where there is an ill-defined border. The usual example is the difference between a "chair" and a "stool" -- the stool has longer legs, but there is no clear rule of exactly how much.

I scored the debate, and noted that PRO discussed the autobahn. This alone was enough to score arguments for PRO, IMHO. CON's counter-point about infrastructure destruction did not directly address this point, was more relevant to wartime tactics, and did not address the autobahn's continued lasting existence and reputation. IMHO the autobahn is a "substantial, positive aspect" of the Nazi regime, and was unaddressed by CON.

The first autobahn was completed before Hitler took power. Con didn't do a really good job of dismantling each of Pro's claims, but Pro had set the bar high and Pro had the burden to show that Hitler's leadership was behind each accomplishment.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 1:38:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/14/2013 5:07:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

... IMHO...it was about whether or not Hitler's government had ANY positives, that it had SOMETHING OTHER THAN negatives, i.e. "Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides."

I think the opening argument must be ignored to have that interpretation. You would agree that the debate would be a foolish waste of time with that interpretation, right? Whereas if taken in the context of the opening argument, it is a reasonable debate about the dimensions of Hitler's leadership. It asks, "Was Hitler anything more than an ideologue and brilliant propagandist?"

I disagree with this interpretation. Taking the first round into account, especially the concluding sentence:

" I can't strike out all horrors of war, all lives Hitler took away, but there are two sides of the coin and we should consider both."

...easily leads to the conclusion that this debate was about whether or not there were 2 sides to the coin, i.e. whether or not there were ANY positives, which indeed is ridiculous to side against. However, there are some people who do think that Hitler is the pure embodiment of evil, and those people would embrace the CON position, regardless of how ridiculous it may be.

...
What is the difference between "any improvement" and "substantial positive aspects"?

What is the difference between "insubstantial" and "substantial"? It is up to the user to decide where the line is. Debate resolutions often refer to "substantially change" despite the problem of definition. The examples Pro gave in the opening argument set the bar high because he claimed extraordinary achievements of leadership.

Here I would note the drift in focus, that any discussion of substantiveness is wholly irrelevant to the resolution as worded. The resolution is IMHO indeed about "any improvement".

This is a classical problem of definition, where there is an ill-defined border. The usual example is the difference between a "chair" and a "stool" -- the stool has longer legs, but there is no clear rule of exactly how much.

I scored the debate, and noted that PRO discussed the autobahn. This alone was enough to score arguments for PRO, IMHO. CON's counter-point about infrastructure destruction did not directly address this point, was more relevant to wartime tactics, and did not address the autobahn's continued lasting existence and reputation. IMHO the autobahn is a "substantial, positive aspect" of the Nazi regime, and was unaddressed by CON.

The first autobahn was completed before Hitler took power. Con didn't do a really good job of dismantling each of Pro's claims, but Pro had set the bar high and Pro had the burden to show that Hitler's leadership was behind each accomplishment.

This is interesting and debatable...regardless there was no debate about it in the debate proper. Given the wording of the resolution, IMHO this was enough to substantiate a PRO position.
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?