Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Voting on troll/joke debates

philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 5:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yesterday, I read this funny debate on the Jesus interpretation of quantum physics:

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

I commented that I didn't know how to vote on debates like this. Somebody replied that we should vote on who is funnier.

My reservation about that was that the person who accepted the debate didn't go into the debate knowing it was a joke. He thought it was supposed to be a serious debate. So is it really fair to vote against him? Shouldn't the initiator have made it clear in the beginning that it was a joke debate?

I'm curious what everybody else's thoughts are on how to vote on a joke debate. Do you vote on the merits of the arguments despite the fact that it's all a joke? Or do you vote on creativity? Or do you vote on how funny it is? Do you take into account whether the person who accepted the debate could've known up front that it was a joke debate?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 5:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The way I see it, the vote should ultimately go to whoever made the more convincing argument, but only if that person participated in the joke debate by making "joke" arguments. Taking a troll debate seriously and posting serious arguments should take off major points from their argument. In the same, the person who has funnier arguments should also have a good advantage when it comes to voting on who made the more convincing arguments.

Nice to see you back Philochristos
Nolite Timere
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 5:21:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you. :-)
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 7:48:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Perhaps Poe's Law will shed some light on this...

Concept
Originally the law only made the claim that someone will mistake a parody of fundamentalism for the real thing " that if someone made a sarcastic comment stating that evolution was a hoax because "birds don't give birth to monkeys," then there was a high probability that at least one person would miss the joke and explain (in all seriousness) how the poster was an idiot. (The equally ridiculous Crocoduck was originally intended seriously.) However, the usage of the law has grown, and now the term "Poe" is applied to almost any parody on the internet. Essentially, Poe's Law has developed to include three similar but distinct concepts:

The original idea that at least one person will mistake parody postings for sincere beliefs.

That nobody will be able to distinguish many instances of parody posts from the real thing.

That anyone not already in the grip of fundamentalist ideas will mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalism for parody.

For example, not only can Poe's Law apply to extreme fundamentalism, but it can also apply to extreme liberalism, extreme charitableness, extreme fanboyism, extreme environmentalism, or even extreme love. The most likely reason for this expansion is the tendency for people to "call Poe's Law" (see below under "Reception and usage") on any fundamentalist rant even before someone has responded negatively. After a while, when many sincere posts were called "Poe's Law", or when every parody got labeled "Poe's Law", the concept naturally expanded.

The actual canonical definition has not changed to encompass the expanded usage, and a true Poe's Law fundamentalist could object to its usage beyond the original concept. On the other hand, the objection itself could be parody.

Ref: http://rationalwiki.org...'s_Law
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 12:15:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 5:06:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yesterday, I read this funny debate on the Jesus interpretation of quantum physics:

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

I commented that I didn't know how to vote on debates like this. Somebody replied that we should vote on who is funnier.

My reservation about that was that the person who accepted the debate didn't go into the debate knowing it was a joke. He thought it was supposed to be a serious debate. So is it really fair to vote against him? Shouldn't the initiator have made it clear in the beginning that it was a joke debate?

I'm curious what everybody else's thoughts are on how to vote on a joke debate. Do you vote on the merits of the arguments despite the fact that it's all a joke? Or do you vote on creativity? Or do you vote on how funny it is? Do you take into account whether the person who accepted the debate could've known up front that it was a joke debate?

Imabench does this all the time, but here's what I do
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 12:30:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 12:15:21 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 5:06:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yesterday, I read this funny debate on the Jesus interpretation of quantum physics:

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

I commented that I didn't know how to vote on debates like this. Somebody replied that we should vote on who is funnier.

My reservation about that was that the person who accepted the debate didn't go into the debate knowing it was a joke. He thought it was supposed to be a serious debate. So is it really fair to vote against him? Shouldn't the initiator have made it clear in the beginning that it was a joke debate?

I'm curious what everybody else's thoughts are on how to vote on a joke debate. Do you vote on the merits of the arguments despite the fact that it's all a joke? Or do you vote on creativity? Or do you vote on how funny it is? Do you take into account whether the person who accepted the debate could've known up front that it was a joke debate?

Imabench does this all the time, but here's what I do

Am I the only who finds it amusing that there's nothing after "here's what I do"?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:31:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 12:30:09 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:15:21 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 5:06:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yesterday, I read this funny debate on the Jesus interpretation of quantum physics:

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

I commented that I didn't know how to vote on debates like this. Somebody replied that we should vote on who is funnier.

My reservation about that was that the person who accepted the debate didn't go into the debate knowing it was a joke. He thought it was supposed to be a serious debate. So is it really fair to vote against him? Shouldn't the initiator have made it clear in the beginning that it was a joke debate?

I'm curious what everybody else's thoughts are on how to vote on a joke debate. Do you vote on the merits of the arguments despite the fact that it's all a joke? Or do you vote on creativity? Or do you vote on how funny it is? Do you take into account whether the person who accepted the debate could've known up front that it was a joke debate?

Imabench does this all the time, but here's what I do

Am I the only who finds it amusing that there's nothing after "here's what I do"?

It's quite the symbol, really. "Here's what I do: nothing."
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 10:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:31:42 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:30:09 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:15:21 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 5:06:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yesterday, I read this funny debate on the Jesus interpretation of quantum physics:

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

I commented that I didn't know how to vote on debates like this. Somebody replied that we should vote on who is funnier.

My reservation about that was that the person who accepted the debate didn't go into the debate knowing it was a joke. He thought it was supposed to be a serious debate. So is it really fair to vote against him? Shouldn't the initiator have made it clear in the beginning that it was a joke debate?

I'm curious what everybody else's thoughts are on how to vote on a joke debate. Do you vote on the merits of the arguments despite the fact that it's all a joke? Or do you vote on creativity? Or do you vote on how funny it is? Do you take into account whether the person who accepted the debate could've known up front that it was a joke debate?

Imabench does this all the time, but here's what I do

Am I the only who finds it amusing that there's nothing after "here's what I do"?

It's quite the symbol, really. "Here's what I do: nothing."

you were suppose to look at the debate. thats what i did
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 11:03:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 5:06:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yesterday, I read this funny debate on the Jesus interpretation of quantum physics:

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

I commented that I didn't know how to vote on debates like this. Somebody replied that we should vote on who is funnier.

That is usually how you vote on troll debates

My reservation about that was that the person who accepted the debate didn't go into the debate knowing it was a joke. He thought it was supposed to be a serious debate. So is it really fair to vote against him?

Did he not know until after the debate ended or did he catch on at around round 2 or 3? If he figured out it was a troll debate meant for laughs and he still took it seriously, then that can count against him...

Shouldn't the initiator have made it clear in the beginning that it was a joke debate?

you only have to make it clear if the debate itself isnt painfully obvious that its a joke debate OR if the person making the debate is known for making joke debates....

I'm curious what everybody else's thoughts are on how to vote on a joke debate. Do you vote on the merits of the arguments despite the fact that it's all a joke? Or do you vote on creativity? Or do you vote on how funny it is?

Its usually those last two, funniness and creativity....

Do you take into account whether the person who accepted the debate could've known up front that it was a joke debate?

It all depends on whether or not the title of the debate clearly gave it away and if the person making the debate is well known for making joke debates.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015