Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Upcoming Team Debate

Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 6:51:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We will be having another team debate soon, and are accepting volunteers to fill out the roster.

The Resolution agreed upon at this point is:

Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase its military capabilities in Southeast Asia

The debate will be a 3x3 debate with four substantive rounds. If you are interested in participating, please reply and post which side you prefer to defend.

Pro: Team Y

1. Raisor (Captain)
2.
3.

Con: Team X

1. rross (Captain)
2.
3.

If you are curious about how team debates are run, please check out the first (and so far only) DDO team debate:

http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:23:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tempting because I would love to be on your team. But it'll be a time suck and I don't have much time (although I tend to someone waste time by playing mafia).
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:23:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:15:31 PM, Raisor wrote:
Y'all are constantly whining about team debates but no one is interested?

Because these aren't the type of team debates people want, obviously.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:24:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:23:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:15:31 PM, Raisor wrote:
Y'all are constantly whining about team debates but no one is interested?

Because these aren't the type of team debates people want, obviously.

I'd say working on a team with Raisor is exactly what most members on DDO would want.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:24:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:23:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:15:31 PM, Raisor wrote:
Y'all are constantly whining about team debates but no one is interested?

Because these aren't the type of team debates people want, obviously.

What type do you want?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:29:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:24:59 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:23:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:15:31 PM, Raisor wrote:
Y'all are constantly whining about team debates but no one is interested?

Because these aren't the type of team debates people want, obviously.

What type do you want?

Nobody wants to share an account. They want their own account, participating in a debate with another account. It's not that people are complaining about team debates and ending up not participating when the offer comes. It's that the offer being presented isn't anything like what people had in mind.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:29:22 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:24:59 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:23:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:15:31 PM, Raisor wrote:
Y'all are constantly whining about team debates but no one is interested?

Because these aren't the type of team debates people want, obviously.

What type do you want?

Nobody wants to share an account. They want their own account, participating in a debate with another account. It's not that people are complaining about team debates and ending up not participating when the offer comes. It's that the offer being presented isn't anything like what people had in mind.

The team debate system we have right now is a pilot program. The fact that voting turnout for the first team debate was low-average does not send a strong signal to juggle that team debating is a worthwhile investment of resources. If the second team debate shows similarly low prospects in both voting and community interest, Juggle is likely to interpret that as a sign that the DDO community is more interested in bitching about team debates than actually participating in them.

I'm sorry that the current team debates wont help your ELO, but if you actually think team debates are a fun and worthwhile pursuit you should join up.

#channelingmyinnerconservative
#IthinkSargonisavaluedmemberofDDOanddontwanttopisshim/herofflylasSargonplzjoinmyteamdebate
#Youcantalwaysgetwahtyouwantbutifyoutrysometimes
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 9:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:56:19 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:29:22 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:24:59 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:23:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:15:31 PM, Raisor wrote:
Y'all are constantly whining about team debates but no one is interested?

Because these aren't the type of team debates people want, obviously.

What type do you want?

Nobody wants to share an account. They want their own account, participating in a debate with another account. It's not that people are complaining about team debates and ending up not participating when the offer comes. It's that the offer being presented isn't anything like what people had in mind.

The team debate system we have right now is a pilot program. The fact that voting turnout for the first team debate was low-average does not send a strong signal to juggle that team debating is a worthwhile investment of resources. If the second team debate shows similarly low prospects in both voting and community interest, Juggle is likely to interpret that as a sign that the DDO community is more interested in bitching about team debates than actually participating in them.

I'm sorry that the current team debates wont help your ELO, but if you actually think team debates are a fun and worthwhile pursuit you should join up.

#channelingmyinnerconservative
#IthinkSargonisavaluedmemberofDDOanddontwanttopisshim/herofflylasSargonplzjoinmyteamdebate
#Youcantalwaysgetwahtyouwantbutifyoutrysometimes

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. They're misinterpreting events.
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 5:29:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Raisor, it's not surprising vote turn out was kinda low, because voting turnout on almost every debate is below average, and has been for around half a year. I had two debates on at around the same time which got zero votes each, even after I posted them on the forums. To judge the value of a debate based on voting turnout is not fair.

That's especially true when I've already created the perfect platform for having team debates without needing to go through all this. I think how quickly people took to that and started making their own teams proves that there is very strong interest. And remember - many of those on DDO have never been on the forums. I didn't go on to the forums until very late, because debate is what I'm passionate about, not foruming or site politics.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 9:21:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 8:57:48 PM, rross wrote:
Our team's good to go. :)

We can start whenever you're ready, Raisor.

The team is wrichcirw, Larz and me.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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

If anyone's interested, this debate is now finished.

This is our second finished team debate on this site. I wasn't sure if the effort would be worth it, but it definitely is. Larz and wrichcirw were awesome. I really liked hearing about strategy from them and getting feedback on my round.

So I think everyone should give it a try. Now TUF is going to be president (seems like anyway) team debating really has a chance to work.
NarcissisticOverthinker
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 4:12:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm fairly good at debating despite being new. I have experience at it outside of this website. I already have 3 complete ones if you wish to view them.
Only a truly delusional human being would think they are perfect.

This is because they are not me and I am perfect.

Am I delusional? Of course not! That rule only applies to humans and I am a god.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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

If anyone's interested, this debate is now finished.

This is our second finished team debate on this site. I wasn't sure if the effort would be worth it, but it definitely is. Larz and wrichcirw were awesome. I really liked hearing about strategy from them and getting feedback on my round.

So I think everyone should give it a try. Now TUF is going to be president (seems like anyway) team debating really has a chance to work.

It was overall a good debate and I enjoyed it. Roy and thett were great teammates and the collaboration was interesting. I thought the debate was definitely more enjoyable with the research burden shared between teammates.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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

If anyone's interested, this debate is now finished.

This is our second finished team debate on this site. I wasn't sure if the effort would be worth it, but it definitely is. Larz and wrichcirw were awesome. I really liked hearing about strategy from them and getting feedback on my round.

So I think everyone should give it a try. Now TUF is going to be president (seems like anyway) team debating really has a chance to work.

As a friendly post-script to those involved in the debate:

I'm kind of ticked you claimed we exceeded the character limits in R5- I was very careful to trim down my argument to meet the 4k characters. I'm guessing you included the "Procedural Note" which wasn't an argument, just a reminder on the peculiar format of the debate. It also looks like your character count is 4057...

I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it. You should have brought it up at least one round earlier. Also you should have pointed out that we are spiking out of your sovereignty/new bases argument as an impact to your argument- basically "they aren't advocating the Rez and are doing so to dodge our arguments"

At any rate I disagree with backloading arguments into R4, even if new arguments aren't explicitly disallowed it is unfair to launch a large number of new arguments and pieces of evidence in the last full length round. I'm sure people will disagree, but if I were a judge I would not consider those arguments. That being said, I know in my debate against wrichirw on CEO salaries I dumped new evidence in my second to last round because I hadn't had time to do proper research before that (though I still think it was bad practice on my part and I regret it). Point being, I think it is unfair but I'm not holding any grudges.
but that is for the judges to decide.

I think your strategy was not the best choice. I think you should have emphasized the inflammatory nature of U.S. presence more and added some analysis or argument about how U.S. presence makes conflict more likely. You have only a few lines on this in your opening round and they aren't backed up by anything- you just say "U.S. presence is destabilizing" with the only explanation being that South Korea and Japan sometimes complain about troop presence. The obvious response is that those complaints haven't caused any real problems in the past so your argument is empirically disproven (this is the argument we tried to make, idk if it was clearly articulated).

The real argument you need to be making is that increased U.S. presence just raises the stakes- it triggers an arms race, encourages the militarization we say we want to deter, creates a greater likelihood of accidental conflict or miscalculation, etc. Really you are making the exact opposite point- that china is so passive that almost nothing will trigger conflict of military response. If this is true then there's really no downside to putting troops in SEA- it might ruffle feathers but no one is going to DO anything about it.

You also need to impact your arguments that SEA will be upset by US military presence- that it risks tanking trade relations, it risks creating a rift in ASEAN, it risks hurting cooperation on other security issues (E.G. PIRACY AND TERRORISM). OR make some sort of moral argument about how sovereignty or IR cooperation or whatever is important.

I have more to say - I strongly disagree with the strategic approach in terms of what the best arguments to make are, but I will leave it at that. I would be interested to hear what the Con team has to say about how they viewed our approach.

Now watch as Con wins 15-0 and I eat all these words...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 6:57:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

Anyway. I don't really get your objection. Your rules were:

"R1 is for introductory comments/acceptance

R2-R4 are constructive rounds for presenting cases and rebuttals.

R5 will be a half length round for closing remarks- no new arguments or evidence may be presented in R5.
"

So you can present information in R4 but not in R5.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 7:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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

If anyone's interested, this debate is now finished.

This is our second finished team debate on this site. I wasn't sure if the effort would be worth it, but it definitely is. Larz and wrichcirw were awesome. I really liked hearing about strategy from them and getting feedback on my round.

So I think everyone should give it a try. Now TUF is going to be president (seems like anyway) team debating really has a chance to work.

As a friendly post-script to those involved in the debate:

I'm kind of ticked you claimed we exceeded the character limits in R5- I was very careful to trim down my argument to meet the 4k characters. I'm guessing you included the "Procedural Note" which wasn't an argument, just a reminder on the peculiar format of the debate. It also looks like your character count is 4057...

Our character count is 3996, anyone could copy/paste our round and reach the same conclusion, and this includes our own version of your "procedural note" (i.e. the conduct section).

I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it. You should have brought it up at least one round earlier. Also you should have pointed out that we are spiking out of your sovereignty/new bases argument as an impact to your argument- basically "they aren't advocating the Rez and are doing so to dodge our arguments"

I explicitly opened with the bolded in round #2, so your accusation is unfounded.

At any rate I disagree with backloading arguments into R4, even if new arguments aren't explicitly disallowed it is unfair to launch a large number of new arguments and pieces of evidence in the last full length round. I'm sure people will disagree, but if I were a judge I would not consider those arguments.

This begins to get ridiculous. I know you have not done many debates as PRO, but as PRO, you need to get used to CON having final word.

That being said, I know in my debate against wrichirw on CEO salaries I dumped new evidence in my second to last round because I hadn't had time to do proper research before that (though I still think it was bad practice on my part and I regret it). Point being, I think it is unfair but I'm not holding any grudges.

Agree on not holding any grudges.

but that is for the judges to decide.

I think your strategy was not the best choice. I think you should have emphasized the inflammatory nature of U.S. presence more and added some analysis or argument about how U.S. presence makes conflict more likely. You have only a few lines on this in your opening round and they aren't backed up by anything- you just say "U.S. presence is destabilizing" with the only explanation being that South Korea and Japan sometimes complain about troop presence.

And Iraq, and Vietnam...

The obvious response is that those complaints haven't caused any real problems in the past so your argument is empirically disproven (this is the argument we tried to make, idk if it was clearly articulated).

The obvious counterpoint would be that Japan and Korea were occupied when there was an actual military crisis. There is none in SEA at the moment, there was none in Iraq, i.e. we should expect a similar outcome to what occurred in Iraq, not what occurred in Japan and Korea.

The real argument you need to be making [etc]

I will stop you here. You had BoP. We don't really "need" to make an argument.

You also need to impact your arguments that SEA will be upset by US military presence- that it risks tanking trade relations, it risks creating a rift in ASEAN, it risks hurting cooperation on other security issues (E.G. PIRACY AND TERRORISM). OR make some sort of moral argument about how sovereignty or IR cooperation or whatever is important.

IMHO Iraq was enough of an example of impact. Arguments about sovereignty were all over all of our rounds.

I have more to say - I strongly disagree with the strategic approach in terms of what the best arguments to make are, but I will leave it at that. I would be interested to hear what the Con team has to say about how they viewed our approach.

We were continually surprised that you guys chose to talk about Japan, Korea, and Taiwan over any actual SEA countries. We did not think you were debating the resolution, and stated such repeatedly. IMHO it was not a satisfying debate, and were it not for the fact that I'm a bit burned out on the topic, I wouldn't mind trying PRO on it...I was PRO/CON on this resolution before we started, and the more I researched this, the more I would have stressed the Philippines had I gone PRO...I probably would have spent two entire rounds on that one country. Did you guys even know that the US is opening bases there as we speak?
http://www.stripes.com...

I was pretty candid with my team that I expected this entire debate to be a long slog over bases in the Philippines, but after I saw your opening, I explicitly took out any mention of the Philippines in my arguments so as to not give you guys any ideas and instead let you guys do as you wish with irrelevant countries outside of SEA.

Now watch as Con wins 15-0 and I eat all these words...

I doubt it. Personally, I expect you guys to win. You guy have massive home-court advantage regarding stance on the resolution, i.e. your position naturally sounds pro-US. Appreciate the civil discussion regardless.
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?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 7:19:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 4:12:15 PM, NarcissisticOverthinker wrote:
I'm fairly good at debating despite being new. I have experience at it outside of this website. I already have 3 complete ones if you wish to view them.

I was setting up another team debate with bladerunner060, but he seems to have wandered off. But there'll be another one for sure.
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 7:32:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I likewise definitely brought up the fact that you were using examples from beyond SE Asia without much justification.

I can see what you're saying. The strategic approach we basically took was to try to block BOP on as many levels as possible. So we were both arguing that there is no problem to solve (China is OK) and that the solution would have negative externalities (spark arms race). I don't believe there is a contradiction there in our internal narrative, but then we weren't trying to present a counter-narrative at all, only stop you from presenting a consistent one. To that end I think we did alright, although I think we could have pushed the "even if" nature of our argument a bit more on reflection.

The big thing (in my case anyway - I did r3) was that I was trying to get you to more explicitly acknowledge the contradiction in your case where you said China is big and bad simply for things like massing forces, so the appropriate response would be for the US to mass forces (making the US big and bad). I didn't expect China to be the primary focus of your case at all. So that was interesting.

Generally I think cases based on hypotheticals are weaker than actual immediate crises. Before the debate I pointed out to my team that we have to be careful speaking of SE Asia as unified as they are not - half the countries are currently in civil war, hatred between Buddhists and Muslims runs rife, the states are politically opposed, have their own internal land conflicts going on right now... and you guys focus on a possible nuclear war with China using Japan as an example!? I couldn't believe that. Especially a nuclear war when these states have literally been the most active campaigners in the whole world against nuclear weapons.

But yeah, good debate regardless! Thanks.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

That's just the definition of SEA, not the violation you bring up in R4. You absolutely say SEA is X I'm R2. What you don't say is "this is how pro is failing to meet our definition" a that only comes in R4.

The way to think about it is this- your argument is that our Japan stuff is irrelevant because outside the resolution. How could we have made a counter argument to this before R4? Your R2 definition does not contain the explanation of you feel we aren't meeting the resolution, so it does not contain enough info for us to address the points you made in R4.

To be honest we probably should have explicitly stated no new arguments in R4. The purpose of no new arguments... Is to prevent exactly this situation, where points which absolutely require a rejoinder from the opposing side are made in a round that doesn't allow for said rejoinder. It was an oversight on my part so I will treat this as a lesson learned.

I really prefer the three full rounds, one half length round format so in the future I will explicitly state first two rounds are comstructives and last two are rebuttals.

This is all just a theoretical issue about what should be allowed to maintain fairness. It's unfair for one side to make arguments the other has no chance to respond to regardless of what is explicitly agrreed to. We actually had an internal discussion on this point before R5 and decided it was an argument worth making- you all certainly did not break the rules, it's just a theory argument and what sort of arguments ought to be allowed.
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:38:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:35:41 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

That's just the definition of SEA, not the violation you bring up in R4. You absolutely say SEA is X I'm R2. What you don't say is "this is how pro is failing to meet our definition" a that only comes in R4.

The way to think about it is this- your argument is that our Japan stuff is irrelevant because outside the resolution. How could we have made a counter argument to this before R4? Your R2 definition does not contain the explanation of you feel we aren't meeting the resolution, so it does not contain enough info for us to address the points you made in R4.

To be honest we probably should have explicitly stated no new arguments in R4. The purpose of no new arguments... Is to prevent exactly this situation, where points which absolutely require a rejoinder from the opposing side are made in a round that doesn't allow for said rejoinder. It was an oversight on my part so I will treat this as a lesson learned.

I really prefer the three full rounds, one half length round format so in the future I will explicitly state first two rounds are comstructives and last two are rebuttals.

This is all just a theoretical issue about what should be allowed to maintain fairness. It's unfair for one side to make arguments the other has no chance to respond to regardless of what is explicitly agrreed to. We actually had an internal discussion on this point before R5 and decided it was an argument worth making- you all certainly did not break the rules, it's just a theory argument and what sort of arguments ought to be allowed.

I feel like I'm being ignored. In R3 I clearly said Japan is not SEA.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:48:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:35:41 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

That's just the definition of SEA, not the violation you bring up in R4. You absolutely say SEA is X I'm R2. What you don't say is "this is how pro is failing to meet our definition" a that only comes in R4.

From round #2:

PRO has forwarded a case about Southeast Asia without discussing Southeast Asia.
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?
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:01:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 7:32:06 PM, larztheloser wrote:
I likewise definitely brought up the fact that you were using examples from beyond SE Asia without much justification.

Could you quote it? I'm not doubting you, it would just be helpful to see if misunderstood or missed one of you earlier arguments.

Anyways Japan wasn't supposed to be relevant as part of the troop increase but as a relevant ir consideration and scenario for what happens if we don't balance.

Again I think you were on point with the argument you made in R4, I just think it should have been made earlier.


I can see what you're saying. The strategic approach we basically took was to try to block BOP on as many levels as possible. So we were both arguing that there is no problem to solve (China is OK) and that the solution would have negative externalities (spark arms race). I don't believe there is a contradiction there in our internal narrative, but then we weren't trying to present a counter-narrative at all, only stop you from presenting a consistent one. To that end I think we did alright, although I think we could have pushed the "even if" nature of our argument a bit more on reflection.

I think the bop mentality on DDO is very underdeveloped and naive. Anyways, once we make our case we have met our BOP- we have provided reasons to affirm. If all you do is present harms takeouts and defensive arguments, you are just making the strength of our case weaker, but even with a weak case we still meet bop. At the end of the round we can always just say "fine con showed that the reasons to affirm are marginal, but there still are some reasons sowe have met bop."

This is why offense/defense (or cost/benefit) is the best way to think about policy resolutions.


The big thing (in my case anyway - I did r3) was that I was trying to get you to more explicitly acknowledge the contradiction in your case where you said China is big and bad simply for things like massing forces, so the appropriate response would be for the US to mass forces (making the US big and bad). I didn't expect China to be the primary focus of your case at all. So that was interesting.


I don't see how it's a contradiction. We tried to make the argument that countries react differently to china vs us, that china and us are after different goals, and that power relations are affected differently. We tried to provide reasons for how the two countries increasing military power are not equivalent- for example when we argued that territorial conflicts exist between china and others.

But again, I see the point you are getting at. This is what I meant in my post about how you should have focused the argument on how when either side masses force it increases risk of conflict, creates arms race etc. I don't think saying "look they have a contradiction" is as compelling as actuall building out whichever side of the contradiction you want to push- in this case that a u.s. build up is just as bad or worse than a china build up. IMO your approach was more passively trying to defend china as not that bad when it should have been more focused on why increased us presence is even worse than whatever china is doing.

Generally I think cases based on hypotheticals are weaker than actual immediate crises. Before the debate I pointed out to my team that we have to be careful speaking of SE Asia as unified as they are not - half the countries are currently in civil war, hatred between Buddhists and Muslims runs rife, the states are politically opposed, have their own internal land conflicts going on right now... and you guys focus on a possible nuclear war with China using Japan as an example!? I couldn't believe that. Especially a nuclear war when these states have literally been the most active campaigners in the whole world against nuclear weapons.

But yeah, good debate regardless! Thanks.

Well we tried to focus on the territorial conflicts between china and sea as well. But Japan came to the front because it was a go to example for perception of balancing. I am not in love with the way we made the Japan argument but oh well. I agree nuclear war is not the big concern but honestly I think conventional warfare is definitely a possibility in the region and between china/Japan.

If you think this resolution wasn't about china I think you might not be up on what the pivot to Asia is about. Yes it's about the broader region but it is also massively about china. That's why we had a lot of evidence on china vs us relations with ASEAN, territorial disputes w china, during the debate there was a fairly important crisis involving china making a territorial claim in sea and the us flying b52s over the region.

China is what the literature is about, that's the obvious place to go with is Rez.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:48:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:35:41 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

That's just the definition of SEA, not the violation you bring up in R4. You absolutely say SEA is X I'm R2. What you don't say is "this is how pro is failing to meet our definition" a that only comes in R4.

From round #2:

PRO has forwarded a case about Southeast Asia without discussing Southeast Asia.

Yes that is a line from R2- but again, how does that contain the specific issues you bring up in R4?

That's just a statement with no explanation- in what way are we not talking about SEA?

What response could we give to refute that statement beside "we are too discussing SEA!"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 10:05:10 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:48:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:35:41 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

That's just the definition of SEA, not the violation you bring up in R4. You absolutely say SEA is X I'm R2. What you don't say is "this is how pro is failing to meet our definition" a that only comes in R4.

From round #2:

PRO has forwarded a case about Southeast Asia without discussing Southeast Asia.

Yes that is a line from R2- but again, how does that contain the specific issues you bring up in R4?

That's just a statement with no explanation- in what way are we not talking about SEA?

1) I'm not sure what specifically you find objectionable in R4. Regardless, we are fully within bounds to make arguments in that round.

2) I think it's pretty clear that if we say that SEA is not being discussed, and then immediately after define SEA, that audiences can figure out that if countries not defined as SEA are being discussed, then SEA is not being discussed.

This sounds rather simplistic. Please let me know if your argument is more substantive than this.

What response could we give to refute that statement beside "we are too discussing SEA!"
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?
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:16:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:48:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:35:41 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 6:55:48 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/14/2013 5:06:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:08:20 PM, rross wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:19:23 PM, rross wrote:
Here it is.

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


I'm kind of ticked at myself for mentioning Guam- I believe it should have been Northern Australia. I misunderstood a point Roy had sent me but we will see how it shakes out. I think your point about the countries not being in SEA was a smart one to make, but again you only bring it up in R4- there was no way for us to respond to it.

It was one of the first things wrichcirw said in round 2:

"Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. "

That's pretty clear.

That's just the definition of SEA, not the violation you bring up in R4. You absolutely say SEA is X I'm R2. What you don't say is "this is how pro is failing to meet our definition" a that only comes in R4.

From round #2:

PRO has forwarded a case about Southeast Asia without discussing Southeast Asia.

My interpretation of this argument is that con thought it was obvious how we were off topic and so felt it was sufficient to simply state "pro is off topic."

In r4 con made new arguments, thinking they should already be obvious from the statement in r2.

My point is that the simple statemtn in r2 does not contain the supporting argument offered in r4. The full argument needs to be presented for the sake of clarity as good debating and to establish the argument in the round.

Pro needs to refute the argument supporting your statement in order to prove the statement wrong. But the supporting argument is not made in R2, so pro has nothing to refute until con actually makes the supporting argument in r4.

R2 contains a definition, the statement that we don't meet the definition, but no explanation why we don't meet it.

If nothing else I think this is a lesson in the importance of clearly explaining important arguments. I don't mean that in a condescending way- there are obviously arguments pro made that con misunderstood or missed due to lack of clarity on the part of pro as well.