Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why DDO is faulty.

Roasted_Marshmellow
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 12:34:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a recent debate of mine
http://www.debate.org...
I ended up asking the Pro multiple times for actual sources for his arguments. He decided to time and time again give absolutely none. This makes him fall into a logical fallacy called Appeal to Belief.
(1)Description of Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

So this guy and a lot of other people believe Mohammad is a prophet therefore I am supposed to believe it? What was I supposed to do in the debate call him out on his fallacy? Isn't that for the Judges to actually see what this person is engaging in? I would rather use the little rounds that I have to get the guy to actually put up his sources to prove what he is saying. I guess I could have approached this differently, but in any case I answered his argument with a very sure method. I called him out on what he was doing. Making statements that were appealing to his own belief, and the belief of others. Instead of actually using sources that I could rebuke.

Does anyone else see why this makes me upset? I care about winning debates, but what matters more is for the public to see when someone is committing an obvious fallacy, and to call that person or persons out on it so that they can stop it. This is all done so that the person can become a better debater and actually make some sense.

R_M....

(1)"Fallacy: Appeal to Belief." Fallacy: Appeal to Belief. N.p., 1992-2012. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:33:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:27:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

Not really. It'd only be an appeal to popularity if I said "Vote for me because I'm cool" and I won the debate. Other people who vote like that (i.e. people who award all possible points to one side for no apparent reason) are what we call "vote-bombs" and are usually reported and removed. Even if one hundred people say I smell better than you, so long as they have valid reason (i.e. I smell like roses and you smell like cow feces) it's not an appeal to popularity.

I still fail to see a logical fallacy that the site makes. Maybe you should study up too. Instead of just throwing around words without actually realizing what they are in practical usage.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:41:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 3:27:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

Not really. It'd only be an appeal to popularity if I said "Vote for me because I'm cool" and I won the debate.

Sorry but just because you don't commit ad populum in the debate does not mean the site doesn't. The giant winner tag is based on votes, thus the site is saying "X won this debate because more people voted for him." This topic is about the site although I agree with you that it was odd he didn't mention the site after the topic.

Other people who vote like that (i.e. people who award all possible points to one side for no apparent reason) are what we call "vote-bombs" and are usually reported and removed.

So in other words 'let the people decide, but if they decide wrong suppress the vote'. Ad populum but don't worry if the majority is wrong we will change it. That's even worse and it's probably why when I reported a vote with a known informal fallacy in its RFD, an RFD which clearly showed a misunderstanding of the resolution and it was not removed.

None of this changes the nature of the system which purports to decide the winner of debates yet has only the number of votes as input information. If the moderator removed any incorrect votes it would just be the moderator deciding which would be an appeal to authority.

Even if one hundred people say I smell better than you, so long as they have valid reason (i.e. I smell like roses and you smell like cow feces) it's not an appeal to popularity.

Yet saying I smell better because one hundred people agree is, and that is what the site does.

I still fail to see a logical fallacy that the site makes. Maybe you should study up too. Instead of just throwing around words without actually realizing what they are in practical usage.

I have dreams of fallacy definitions pal.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 12:34:41 AM, Roasted_Marshmellow wrote:
In a recent debate of mine
http://www.debate.org...
I ended up asking the Pro multiple times for actual sources for his arguments. He decided to time and time again give absolutely none. This makes him fall into a logical fallacy called Appeal to Belief.
(1)Description of Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

Well, that's their fault, not the site's.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.


Does anyone else see why this makes me upset? I care about winning debates, but what matters more is for the public to see when someone is committing an obvious fallacy, and to call that person or persons out on it so that they can stop it. This is all done so that the person can become a better debater and actually make some sense.

That's why you, as the debater, calls out the fallacy. A proper vote on a debate is only subject to what the debaters state. If the one side asserts a logical fallacy, and the other side fails to call them out on it, the voters are not supposed to deduct points for the logical fallacy, because it was never called out.

This has nothing at all to do with the fault of the site. It's just the fault of the debater.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I know this isn't an argument with me, but I just had to say...

At 12/7/2013 3:41:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:27:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

Not really. It'd only be an appeal to popularity if I said "Vote for me because I'm cool" and I won the debate.

Sorry but just because you don't commit ad populum in the debate does not mean the site doesn't. The giant winner tag is based on votes, thus the site is saying "X won this debate because more people voted for him."

Actually it's more based on the mechanics of debating (S&G, conduct, argumentation, and evidence). Argumentation is the only one that's debatably a fallacy for determination, but there are valid ways of deciding which arguments are sound and which are note really we should have to take a test to be able to vote, but juggle has enough on his mind

Other people who vote like that (i.e. people who award all possible points to one side for no apparent reason) are what we call "vote-bombs" and are usually reported and removed.

So in other words 'let the people decide, but if they decide wrong suppress the vote'. Ad populum but don't worry if the majority is wrong we will change it. That's even worse and it's probably why when I reported a vote with a known informal fallacy in its RFD, an RFD which clearly showed a misunderstanding of the resolution and it was not removed

Actually you can prove Zaradi right. It is not fallacious to say that if someone's grammar sucks, and the other person didn't make any grammar mistakes, yet the sucky grammar person get the S&G points (for example, this sentence would not award me any S&G points) that there was a vote bomb.

None of this changes the nature of the system which purports to decide the winner of debates yet has only the number of votes as input information. If the moderator removed any incorrect votes it would just be the moderator deciding which would be an appeal to authority.

You don't vote on who wins and who loses. It's not ten people said ADreamOfLiberty won but twelve people voted that Zaradi won, therefore Zaradi wins. You vote on who held truer to the criteria.

Even if one hundred people say I smell better than you, so long as they have valid reason (i.e. I smell like roses and you smell like cow feces) it's not an appeal to popularity.

Yet saying I smell better because one hundred people agree is, and that is what the site does.

No, that's what your mind does when other people give someone more points. The site just allows a ranking system to take place with points to decide a winner of points in a particular debate. If you asked you'd probably find out that most people don't see this website as the end all be all of all debates and truth of the universe. It's just some guys and gals duking it out in an intellectual competition to see who performs better.

I still fail to see a logical fallacy that the site makes. Maybe you should study up too. Instead of just throwing around words without actually realizing what they are in practical usage.

I have dreams of fallacy definitions pal.

I thought you had dreams of animals. (Sorry, but you set yourself up for that).
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Roasted_Marshmellow
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:40:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If DDO had Mods to judge each category of debate it would be a lot better. They could actually get judges that know what they are doing when judging debates instead of allowing us simpletons to vote.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:15:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:45:45 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I know this isn't an argument with me, but I just had to say...

At 12/7/2013 3:41:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:27:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

Not really. It'd only be an appeal to popularity if I said "Vote for me because I'm cool" and I won the debate.

Sorry but just because you don't commit ad populum in the debate does not mean the site doesn't. The giant winner tag is based on votes, thus the site is saying "X won this debate because more people voted for him."

Actually it's more based on the mechanics of debating (S&G, conduct, argumentation, and evidence). Argumentation is the only one that's debatably a fallacy for determination, but there are valid ways of deciding which arguments are sound and which are note really we should have to take a test to be able to vote, but juggle has enough on his mind

Spelling and grammar affect the quality of debating but not the winning argument. Ditto for conduct, insulting informal fallacies are fallacious but they do not invalidate non-fallacious forms of argument which may also have been provided.

Evidence is no different from argumentation, it's still the voters perception about the quality of the source which may or may not have anything to do with whether objective facts were relied on. Even worse the number of debates that actually require links are quite small, their proper use is heavily misunderstood to be 'look here is someone/something impressive sounding that agrees with me.'

I tell you what would be better, there is already a polls and opinions section for allowing people to express opinions and opinions backed by a short attempt at justification. There is no need to have a separate mechanism for debates, just a check box that says "create a poll" or "create an opinion" for my debate so people can vote to their hearts content but do not claim to decide the winner based on that poll.

There is nothing to lose but the hypocrisy of running a debate site in contradiction to the rules of logic. Anyone who thinks this change would be a negative isn't looking for a debate site and shouldn't find their home at something which is supposed to be a debate site.

Other people who vote like that (i.e. people who award all possible points to one side for no apparent reason) are what we call "vote-bombs" and are usually reported and removed.

So in other words 'let the people decide, but if they decide wrong suppress the vote'. Ad populum but don't worry if the majority is wrong we will change it. That's even worse and it's probably why when I reported a vote with a known informal fallacy in its RFD, an RFD which clearly showed a misunderstanding of the resolution and it was not removed

Actually you can prove Zaradi right. It is not fallacious to say that if someone's grammar sucks, and the other person didn't make any grammar mistakes, yet the sucky grammar person get the S&G points (for example, this sentence would not award me any S&G points) that there was a vote bomb.

You can prove one side's arguments were better as well. I fail to see the difference between a vote bomb and an incorrect vote.

None of this changes the nature of the system which purports to decide the winner of debates yet has only the number of votes as input information. If the moderator removed any incorrect votes it would just be the moderator deciding which would be an appeal to authority.

You don't vote on who wins and who loses. It's not ten people said ADreamOfLiberty won but twelve people voted that Zaradi won, therefore Zaradi wins. You vote on who held truer to the criteria.

This statement appears to be self-contradictory. Filling in the missing premise:

/12 people voted that Zaradi won.
/If many most people advocate a certain thing it is true
//Therefore Zardi won

Is ad populum and it is people voting on who wins and loses, at least that's how the site is painting it and certainly how many denizens of the site think of it.

Even if one hundred people say I smell better than you, so long as they have valid reason (i.e. I smell like roses and you smell like cow feces) it's not an appeal to popularity.

Yet saying I smell better because one hundred people agree is, and that is what the site does.

No, that's what your mind does when other people give someone more points.

So that big 'winner' tag should be translated as "winner of the competition for points?"

The site just allows a ranking system to take place with points to decide a winner of points in a particular debate. If you asked you'd probably find out that most people don't see this website as the end all be all of all debates and truth of the universe. It's just some guys and gals duking it out in an intellectual competition to see who performs better.

It's called debate.org, the button you press is "start debate", it is labeled debate a dozen different places.

The intellectual competition is a debate or this site is guilty of some serious false advertising. The better performance in a debate is the better argument.

I still fail to see a logical fallacy that the site makes. Maybe you should study up too. Instead of just throwing around words without actually realizing what they are in practical usage.

I have dreams of fallacy definitions pal.

I thought you had dreams of animals. (Sorry, but you set yourself up for that).

God, I have not set that up for myself anymore than anyone else has. I had a purpose in mind when I signed onto this site, I am not obsessed just because you can't see the full range of issues I care about or my real life behavior.

For the record I dream of lots of things, fallacy definitions, engineering problems, television shows, my family, my job, animals, random people, Sasquatch, climbing mountains, sailing, sometimes really weird stuff like flying or falling into the earth.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:23:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

That's not in fact the case. The decision is made by the votes on various different levels, they give points not votes. Their is even a section of it giving no points to anyone but merely asking who you are with before/and after the debate...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:27:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay Dream. Let's say I buy your argument (which I don't because it doesn't make any kind of sense). If you really do believe this site is such utter shite, why are you still here ranting about it. Talk about a waste of time.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:28:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nevermind, it'd be a wasted year since you made your account one year ago. Lol. Talk about wtf are you doing with your life.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:36:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:23:45 AM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

That's not in fact the case. The decision is made by the votes on various different levels, they give points not votes. Their is even a section of it giving no points to anyone but merely asking who you are with before/and after the debate...

Voting on different levels is not exclusive with votes deciding the winner.

Points which determine whether the site will report one side as the winner and one side as the loser, both of which are taken as the 'last word' by many people on this site.

At 12/8/2013 12:27:16 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Okay Dream. Let's say I buy your argument (which I don't because it doesn't make
any kind of sense).

Case in point, some people don't even understand why an informal fallacy is fallacious.

If you really do believe this site is such utter shite, why are you still here ranting about it. Talk about a waste of time.

If ranting about utter shite was a waste of time there would be no site I should rather be on.

At 12/8/2013 12:28:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Nevermind, it'd be a wasted year since you made your account one year ago. Lol. Talk about wtf are you doing with your life.

It has not been a year.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:41:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:15:40 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:45:45 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I know this isn't an argument with me, but I just had to say...

At 12/7/2013 3:41:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

Sorry but just because you don't commit ad populum in the debate does not mean the site doesn't. The giant winner tag is based on votes, thus the site is saying "X won this debate because more people voted for him."

Actually it's more based on the mechanics of debating (S&G, conduct, argumentation, and evidence). Argumentation is the only one that's debatably a fallacy for determination, but there are valid ways of deciding which arguments are sound and which are note really we should have to take a test to be able to vote, but juggle has enough on his mind

Spelling and grammar affect the quality of debating but not the winning argument. Ditto for conduct, insulting informal fallacies are fallacious but they do not invalidate non-fallacious forms of argument which may also have been provided.

Have you voted on a debate? One of the things you can award points for is S&G. That's an example of voting on this website where you can prove a vote was right.

Evidence is no different from argumentation, it's still the voters perception about the quality of the source which may or may not have anything to do with whether objective facts were relied on. Even worse the number of debates that actually require links are quite small, their proper use is heavily misunderstood to be 'look here is someone/something impressive sounding that agrees with me.'

Their proper use is something like a study or example that backs up what you're saying. You can judge how good evidence is by how well it presents its own argumentation and how thorough a study is, both can be objectively determined.

Argumentation can be objectively determined by a couple criteria. 1) Does it use the claim-warrant-impact formula? Baseless assertions can't be taken as solid arguments. Arguments based on claims that other people make which ultimately provide poor research are also not solid. 2) What you're doing right now. You're talking about logical fallacies. How can you objectively determine whether or not someone's argument is logically supported? Check it for logical fallacies. If it's not fallacious then it's good.

I tell you what would be better, there is already a polls and opinions section for allowing people to express opinions and opinions backed by a short attempt at justification. There is no need to have a separate mechanism for debates, just a check box that says "create a poll" or "create an opinion" for my debate so people can vote to their hearts content but do not claim to decide the winner based on that poll.

You can't do a proper debate in the comments section of an opinions question or poll. Debates need structure and some form of formality. If debates don't have some form of formality, then what we get is pretty much everything that's been screwing up the opinions and polls for the past as long as I've been a user on this site and probably before then.

There is nothing to lose but the hypocrisy of running a debate site in contradiction to the rules of logic. Anyone who thinks this change would be a negative isn't looking for a debate site and shouldn't find their home at something which is supposed to be a debate site.

Actually there's structure to lose.

So in other words 'let the people decide, but if they decide wrong suppress the vote'. Ad populum but don't worry if the majority is wrong we will change it. That's even worse and it's probably why when I reported a vote with a known informal fallacy in its RFD, an RFD which clearly showed a misunderstanding of the resolution and it was not removed

Actually you can prove Zaradi right. It is not fallacious to say that if someone's grammar sucks, and the other person didn't make any grammar mistakes, yet the sucky grammar person get the S&G points (for example, this sentence would not award me any S&G points) that there was a vote bomb.

You can prove one side's arguments were better as well. I fail to see the difference between a vote bomb and an incorrect vote.

Could you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're responding to.

None of this changes the nature of the system which purports to decide the winner of debates yet has only the number of votes as input information. If the moderator removed any incorrect votes it would just be the moderator deciding which would be an appeal to authority.

You don't vote on who wins and who loses. It's not ten people said ADreamOfLiberty won but twelve people voted that Zaradi won, therefore Zaradi wins. You vote on who held truer to the criteria.

This statement appears to be self-contradictory. Filling in the missing premise:

/12 people voted that Zaradi won.
/If many most people advocate a certain thing it is true
//Therefore Zardi won

Is ad populum and it is people voting on who wins and loses, at least that's how the site is painting it and certainly how many denizens of the site think of it.

You completely ignored what I said. Voting isn't a yes or no question. It's not pro own or con won. It's pro had better S&G, but he made a couple logical fallacies and lost the argumentation, but con didn't provide sources so pro wins that vote. It's a determination of who held truer to the criteria given for us to rank objectively.

Yet saying I smell better because one hundred people agree is, and that is what the site does.

No, that's what your mind does when other people give someone more points.

So that big 'winner' tag should be translated as "winner of the competition for points?"


Yes. Problem?
The site just allows a ranking system to take place with points to decide a winner of points in a particular debate. If you asked you'd probably find out that most people don't see this website as the end all be all of all debates and truth of the universe. It's just some guys and gals duking it out in an intellectual competition to see who performs better.

It's called debate.org, the button you press is "start debate", it is labeled debate a dozen different places.

Okay.... So your point is: [insert unclarified point here]

The intellectual competition is a debate or this site is guilty of some serious false advertising. The better performance in a debate is the better argument.


And what you're saying here is: [insert other unclarified point here]
I still fail to see a logical fallacy that the site makes. Maybe you should study up too. Instead of just throwing around words without actually realizing what they are in practical usage.

I have dreams of fallacy definitions pal.

I thought you had dreams of animals. (Sorry, but you set yourself up for that).

God, I have not set that up for myself anymore than anyone else has. I had a purpose in mind when I signed onto this site, I am not obsessed just because you can't see the full range of issues I care about or my real life behavior.

For the record I dream of lots of things, fallacy definitions, engineering problems, television shows, my family, my job, animals, random people, Sasquatch, climbing mountains, sailing, sometimes really weird stuff like flying or falling into the earth.

I know, I was meeting your sarcasm with sarcasm. I thought that's how that part if the argument was going.

In conclusion, you can easily determine a vote to be solid and thus a winner of a debate. The debate isn't for determining something universal or deciding a law for the country. It's just a competition. Who performed better? The website gives us criteria for determining that, all of which can be verified. They may be minority subjective, but all in all it's generally pretty straig
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 1:32:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:36:52 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/8/2013 12:23:45 AM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:21:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:02:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:
What's the correlation between one user being bad to the site being bad? If anything that's a logical fallacy...

Well the site puts a giant "winner" tag when most voters favour one side of a debate... btw that is more appeal to popularity than belief. http://www.nizkor.org...

That's not in fact the case. The decision is made by the votes on various different levels, they give points not votes. Their is even a section of it giving no points to anyone but merely asking who you are with before/and after the debate...

Voting on different levels is not exclusive with votes deciding the winner.

Points which determine whether the site will report one side as the winner and one side as the loser, both of which are taken as the 'last word' by many people on this site.


At 12/8/2013 12:27:16 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Okay Dream. Let's say I buy your argument (which I don't because it doesn't make
any kind of sense).

Case in point, some people don't even understand why an informal fallacy is fallacious.

BUT THERE'S NO FALLACY BEING COMMITTED. HNNNG.

If you really do believe this site is such utter shite, why are you still here ranting about it. Talk about a waste of time.

If ranting about utter shite was a waste of time there would be no site I should rather be on.

1. That statement literally makes zero sense.
2. Ranting is pointless if you're not going to try and fix any of the problems.
3. Why rant about DDO...on DDO? xD That's like ranting about how planned parenthood is immoral inside of an abortion clinic. You're not going to accomplish anything other than look stupid.

At 12/8/2013 12:28:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Nevermind, it'd be a wasted year since you made your account one year ago. Lol. Talk about wtf are you doing with your life.

It has not been a year.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 1:34:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:41:17 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
Have you voted on a debate? One of the things you can award points for is S&G. That's an example of voting on this website where you can prove a vote was right.

Nope. Of all the voting categories you think S&G is the most objective? You can also prove a vote is right about the best argument, or about the best conduct (given an objective criteria for conduct).

You can also prove them wrong.

Fallacies aren't fallacies because they can't be proven wrong.

Evidence is no different from argumentation, it's still the voters perception about the quality of the source which may or may not have anything to do with whether objective facts were relied on. Even worse the number of debates that actually require links are quite small, their proper use is heavily misunderstood to be 'look here is someone/something impressive sounding that agrees with me.'

Their proper use is something like a study or example that backs up what you're saying. You can judge how good evidence is by how well it presents its own argumentation and how thorough a study is, both can be objectively determined.

Again case in point. If you can judge a link by the argumentation in that link then why couldn't you judge the argumentation of the poster who posted that link?

Argumentation can be objectively determined by a couple criteria. 1) Does it use the claim-warrant-impact formula? Baseless assertions can't be taken as solid arguments. Arguments based on claims that other people make which ultimately provide poor research are also not solid. 2) What you're doing right now. You're talking about logical fallacies. How can you objectively determine whether or not someone's argument is logically supported? Check it for logical fallacies. If it's not fallacious then it's good.

If you think I'm saying a vote cannot be objectively evaluated you're wrong. I am saying they can and that's why it's circular to use them as an authority. You could just evaluate the argument itself; the votes are a cop out an informal fallacy used to make voters feel like they don't need to back up their analysis of the argument. On any old forum out there you can post a "yea I agree with post X" but here it means more than the words alone (at least in the eyes of the people here).

You can't do a proper debate in the comments section of an opinions question or poll. Debates need structure and some form of formality.

I work on software, trust me you can remove the voting mechanism from debates and leave all else intact.

There is nothing to lose but the hypocrisy of running a debate site in contradiction to the rules of logic. Anyone who thinks this change would be a negative isn't looking for a debate site and shouldn't find their home at something which is supposed to be a debate site.

Actually there's structure to lose.

The structure in question is the hypocrisy.

Could you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're responding to.

You were using S&G as an example of an element of a vote that could be validated objectively. I am pointing out that the same is true of the original arguments and which one was better.

You completely ignored what I said. Voting isn't a yes or no question. It's not pro own or con won.

Then why does it say Pro won or Con won based on the votes?

It's pro had better S&G, but he made a couple logical fallacies and lost the argumentation, but con didn't provide sources so pro wins that vote. It's a determination of who held truer to the criteria given for us to rank objectively.

But 'you' don't rank them objectively and those criteria are not the same criteria for the winner of a debate. You may as well ask "who was cooler" for all it matters to the reality of the debate.

Yes. Problem?

Yea, that's not how the people of this site see it and you know it. They talk about the winner of a debate and the loser of a debate. They think that tag frees them of any responsibility of continuing (or more likely starting) to support their opinions regardless of the logical value they put in that debate.

In conclusion, you can easily determine a vote to be solid and thus a winner of a debate. The debate isn't for determining something universal or deciding a law for the country. It's just a competition. Who performed better?

When I debate it is to demonstrate the truth. This attitude which treats it like a sport with malleable rules and refereeing by committee disgusts me.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 1:42:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And even if I do buy that there's a fallacy being committed, there's still no correlation between that and the site being bad. There's no other median for deciding on a victor in a competitive setting without an outside party making a ruling. Otherwise we both just yell at eachother for a while and then just leave. There's no point.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 11:36:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 1:34:33 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/8/2013 12:41:17 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
Have you voted on a debate? One of the things you can award points for is S&G. That's an example of voting on this website where you can prove a vote was right.

Nope. Of all the voting categories you think S&G is the most objective? You can also prove a vote is right about the best argument, or about the best conduct (given an objective criteria for conduct).

You can also prove them wrong.

Fallacies aren't fallacies because they can't be proven wrong.

Okay, thank you for your observation. I'm not sure why you said that, but I'm sure you'll bring it up again.

Evidence is no different from argumentation, it's still the voters perception about the quality of the source which may or may not have anything to do with whether objective facts were relied on. Even worse the number of debates that actually require links are quite small, their proper use is heavily misunderstood to be 'look here is someone/something impressive sounding that agrees with me.'

Their proper use is something like a study or example that backs up what you're saying. You can judge how good evidence is by how well it presents its own argumentation and how thorough a study is, both can be objectively determined.

Again case in point. If you can judge a link by the argumentation in that link then why couldn't you judge the argumentation of the poster who posted that link?

You can and should, and there's a proper way for determining how well they presented argument. The people that actually click on those links to check quality instead of just comparing quanitity are there to use such a process.

Argumentation can be objectively determined by a couple criteria. 1) Does it use the claim-warrant-impact formula? Baseless assertions can't be taken as solid arguments. Arguments based on claims that other people make which ultimately provide poor research are also not solid. 2) What you're doing right now. You're talking about logical fallacies. How can you objectively determine whether or not someone's argument is logically supported? Check it for logical fallacies. If it's not fallacious then it's good.

If you think I'm saying a vote cannot be objectively evaluated you're wrong. I am saying they can and that's why it's circular to use them as an authority. You could just evaluate the argument itself; the votes are a cop out an informal fallacy used to make voters feel like they don't need to back up their analysis of the argument. On any old forum out there you can post a "yea I agree with post X" but here it means more than the words alone (at least in my own eyes).

You can't do a proper debate in the comments section of an opinions question or poll. Debates need structure and some form of formality.

I work on software, trust me you can remove the voting mechanism from debates and leave all else intact.

I know..... There's a difference between software and formal debate structure. I'm not talking about software.

There is nothing to lose but the hypocrisy of running a debate site in contradiction to the rules of logic. Anyone who thinks this change would be a negative isn't looking for a debate site and shouldn't find their home at something which is supposed to be a debate site.

Actually there's structure to lose.

The structure in question is the hypocrisy.

No, debate structure is different from voting. In a comments section you can lay out contentions and go round to round with someone in a debate. You'll get interrupted, which could lead to the equivalent of getting mentally gang raped, and respect in debates would almost cease to exist. It would be a yelling contest.

Could you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're responding to.

You were using S&G as an example of an element of a vote that could be validated objectively. I am pointing out that the same is true of the original arguments and which one was better.

Oh look something we agree on. I say all of them can be objectively proven, which makes this a non-fallacious voting process.

You completely ignored what I said. Voting isn't a yes or no question. It's not pro own or con won.

Then why does it say Pro won or Con won based on the votes?

Because either pro or con got more points.... It's not that hard to understand. You get points for how well you debated with specific criteria. You don't say "pro or con" overall. You have to judge which of them better met the criteria, and that means you have to make your vote non-fallacious, which is what this is about in the first place.

It's pro had better S&G, but he made a couple logical fallacies and lost the argumentation, but con didn't provide sources so pro wins that vote. It's a determination of who held truer to the criteria given for us to rank objectively.

But 'you' don't rank them objectively and those criteria are not the same criteria for the winner of a debate. You may as well ask "who was cooler" for all it matters to the reality of the debate.

No, we give points for things that matter in a debate. If you've ever done debate before in something like a club for competition you'd know why the criteria are important.

Yes. Problem?

Yea, that's not how the people of this site see it and you know it. They talk about the winner of a debate and the loser of a debate. They think that tag frees them of any responsibility of continuing (or more likely starting) to support their opinions regardless of the logical value they put in that debate.

Because someone won and someone lost, but they didn't lose on a dualistic vote that would create the fallacy. I can't just say "well I agree with pro, so pro wins." I have to give reasoning, and you agree I can objectively prove a vote, which means it's not fallacious.

In conclusion, you can easily determine a vote to be solid and thus a winner of a debate. The debate isn't for determining something universal or deciding a law for the country. It's just a competition. Who performed better?

When I debate it is to demonstrate the truth. This attitude which treats it like a sport with malleable rules and refereeing by committee disgusts me.

You've moved from fallacy to personal disgust. If it makes you uncomfortable feel free to leave this site.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:34:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 1:42:53 AM, Zaradi wrote:
And even if I do buy that there's a fallacy being committed

Unless like storm here you are think the winning losing tag isn't actually the winning or losing of the debate there is no other interpretation. I gave a link already right? Here I'll give it again.

http://www.nizkor.org...

http://www.nizkor.org...

The site's logic in deciding a winner:

/ Most people believe that side A had the better argument
/ If Most people believe that a claim, X, is true it is.
// Therefore A had the better argument.

there's still no correlation between that and the site being bad.
Of course there is, the fallacy is being validated in the minds of the people here undermining their understanding of logic and the purpose of debate itself.

There's no other median for deciding on a victor in a competitive setting without an outside party making a ruling.
This is a competitive setting to you? There is a very well known way of seeing which argument won, it's called logic; and just because the creators of this site didn't have the time money or inclination to develop logic analysis software doesn't justify resorting to a fallacy so people like you can think their in some kind of sports league.

Otherwise we both just yell at eachother for a while and then just leave. There's no point.
You think ELO has a point? You are proving exactly what I am saying, people like you are here for those imaginary arbitrary points, you don't see any other reason to be here. You think debate without voting at the end is "yelling at each other for a while" and it's no wonder that you yell at someone for a while and call it a debate.

At 12/8/2013 11:36:43 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 12/8/2013 1:34:33 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Again case in point. If you can judge a link by the argumentation in that link then why couldn't you judge the argumentation of the poster who posted that link?

You can and should, and there's a proper way for determining how well they presented argument. The people that actually click on those links to check quality instead of just comparing quanitity are there to use such a process.

Yet when I quoted from a link my opponent gave he acted like he had never heard it before. That tells me even my opponent didn't read his own link and you expect me to believe every voter does?

You were using S&G as an example of an element of a vote that could be validated objectively. I am pointing out that the same is true of the original arguments and which one was better.

Oh look something we agree on. I say all of them can be objectively proven, which makes this a non-fallacious voting process.

No it most certainly does not. A fallacious argument with a true conclusion is still a fallacious argument.

Then why does it say Pro won or Con won based on the votes?

Because either pro or con got more points.... It's not that hard to understand. You get points for how well you debated with specific criteria. You don't say "pro or con" overall. You have to judge which of them better met the criteria, and that means you have to make your vote non-fallacious, which is what this is about in the first place.

It's not the voters who commit a fallacy every time (but they often do) it's the site by taking the voters at their word.

Should I make a poll: "Does the winner loser tag in the debate section mean one party won the debate and one party lost" ? Do I need to start quoting from the DDO FAQ and orientation threads?

No, we give points for things that matter in a debate. If you've ever done debate before in something like a club for competition you'd know why the criteria are important.

You are missing the point, just because someone can make a good vote doesn't mean that no bad votes exist and that is why ad populum is a fallacy.

You've moved from fallacy to personal disgust. If it makes you uncomfortable feel free to leave this site.

I haven't moved anywhere, openly tolerated fallacy personally disgusts me. I am free to leave this site but I am not the source of the problem I am just pointing it out.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 2:57:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 11:36:43 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 12/8/2013 1:34:33 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Again case in point. If you can judge a link by the argumentation in that link then why couldn't you judge the argumentation of the poster who posted that link?

You can and should, and there's a proper way for determining how well they presented argument. The people that actually click on those links to check quality instead of just comparing quanitity are there to use such a process.

Yet when I quoted from a link my opponent gave he acted like he had never heard it before. That tells me even my opponent didn't read his own link and you expect me to believe every voter does?


Please point out to me where I say "all people read the links." I said anyone who does read the links has an intent of examining the quality and will most likely perform a valid examination.
You were using S&G as an example of an element of a vote that could be validated objectively. I am pointing out that the same is true of the original arguments and which one was better.

Oh look something we agree on. I say all of them can be objectively proven, which makes this a non-fallacious voting process.

No it most certainly does not. A fallacious argument with a true conclusion is still a fallacious argument.

I'm sorry, are you saying that voting is fallacious period? Why are you on this website?

Then why does it say Pro won or Con won based on the votes?

Because either pro or con got more points.... It's not that hard to understand. You get points for how well you debated with specific criteria. You don't say "pro or con" overall. You have to judge which of them better met the criteria, and that means you have to make your vote non-fallacious, which is what this is about in the first place.

It's not the voters who commit a fallacy every time (but they often do) it's the site by taking the voters at their word.

Should I make a poll: "Does the winner loser tag in the debate section mean one party won the debate and one party lost" ? Do I need to start quoting from the DDO FAQ and orientation threads?

You're still not getting what I'm saying. Here, let me say it in as simple a sentence as I know how to put it. One person wins a debate and one person loses (unless they tie), but the vote itself is not about who won or who lost. The vote is about criteria. Go to a debate that's in the voting period and look at the format.

No, we give points for things that matter in a debate. If you've ever done debate before in something like a club for competition you'd know why the criteria are important.

You are missing the point, just because someone can make a good vote doesn't mean that no bad votes exist and that is why ad populum is a fallacy.

Please refrain from bringing up already destroyed points. Vote bombs and incorrect analyzation in the RFD can get reported and will be removed.

You've moved from fallacy to personal disgust. If it makes you uncomfortable feel free to leave this site.

I haven't moved anywhere, openly tolerated fallacy personally disgusts me. I am free to leave this site but I am not the source of the problem I am just pointing it out.

I know you're not the source of the problem. I'm saying if it disgusts you that people are allowed to vote then you are free to leave the site.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 4:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 2:57:50 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
Oh look something we agree on. I say all of them can be objectively proven, which makes this a non-fallacious voting process.

No it most certainly does not. A fallacious argument with a true conclusion is still a fallacious argument.

I'm sorry, are you saying that voting is fallacious period?

Concluding one side won a debate based on votes (even via points) is an informal fallacy period.

Why are you on this website?

To debate

You're still not getting what I'm saying. Here, let me say it in as simple a sentence as I know how to put it. One person wins a debate and one person loses (unless they tie), but the vote itself is not about who won or who lost. The vote is about criteria. Go to a debate that's in the voting period and look at the format.

Ok so they vote on points and the points decide who wins and loses? If I ever get into a car accident I'll try that one, I only twisted the steering wheel it was the front of the car that hit something.

Please refrain from bringing up already destroyed points. Vote bombs and incorrect analyzation in the RFD can get reported and will be removed.

But that doesn't mean they are. You can't change the nature of a fallacy by saying "well whenever it's wrong we'll change it" It's fallacious reasoning because it cannot be relied on and the fact that you would need to report a bad vote proves it.

I reported a vote with an RFD which indicated incorrect analysis. It was not removed. How do you explain that?

I know you're not the source of the problem. I'm saying if it disgusts you that people are allowed to vote then you are free to leave the site.

I feel quite free thank you.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 4:18:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 4:03:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/8/2013 2:57:50 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
Oh look something we agree on. I say all of them can be objectively proven, which makes this a non-fallacious voting process.

No it most certainly does not. A fallacious argument with a true conclusion is still a fallacious argument.

I'm sorry, are you saying that voting is fallacious period?

Concluding one side won a debate based on votes (even via points) is an informal fallacy period.

"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion," granted I used Wikipedia for this, but it's a good explanation.

P1: One can objectively prove that a vote is right.
P2: Votes can possibly determine who performed better in a debate.
C: Voting to determine a winner is not inherently an informal fallacy.

Theres a syllogism for you.

Why are you on this website?

To debate

So this is the format you'd prefer to take up?

You're still not getting what I'm saying. Here, let me say it in as simple a sentence as I know how to put it. One person wins a debate and one person loses (unless they tie), but the vote itself is not about who won or who lost. The vote is about criteria. Go to a debate that's in the voting period and look at the format.

Ok so they vote on points and the points decide who wins and loses? If I ever get into a car accident I'll try that one, I only twisted the steering wheel it was the front of the car that hit something.

That was the logical fallacy known as the False Analogy.

A better analogy would be: the soccer team won a game because they performed better. It is not a perfect analogy, but there is a definite way to get points in both situations, and performance of achieving the criteria to get those points is what decides a winner.

Please refrain from bringing up already destroyed points. Vote bombs and incorrect analyzation in the RFD can get reported and will be removed.

But that doesn't mean they are. You can't change the nature of a fallacy by saying "well whenever it's wrong we'll change it" It's fallacious reasoning because it cannot be relied on and the fact that you would need to report a bad vote proves it.

No, because they don't have the man power to go into a full investigation of the debate. It's like the US court of law. Every vote is innocent until someone reports it (presses charges) and they're proven guilty.

I reported a vote with an RFD which indicated incorrect analysis. It was not removed. How do you explain that?

You were probably wrong.

I know you're not the source of the problem. I'm saying if it disgusts you that people are allowed to vote then you are free to leave the site.

I feel quite free thank you.

You're welcome.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 5:10:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey Dream, if you hate DDO so much and find it to be so massively faulty and we're all illogical scumbags, here's some other sites for you to spend your massively more intellectual mind on.

http://www.edeb8.com...
http://www.createdebate.com...

Because if you hate this site so much, I still fail to grasp why you're here. That's like complaining about how awful the taste of chicken is before walking into a KFC and ordering the biggest bucket of chicken they have.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 6:21:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 4:18:35 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 12/8/2013 4:03:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Concluding one side won a debate based on votes (even via points) is an informal fallacy period.

"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion," granted I used Wikipedia for this, but it's a good explanation.

That's the definition of any fallacy.

P1: One can objectively prove that a vote is right.
P2: Votes can possibly determine who performed better in a debate.
C: Voting to determine a winner is not inherently an informal fallacy.

Theres a syllogism for you.

Your 'syllogism' here is neither cogent nor valid. The term informal fallacy appears only in the conclusion, big logic no no to introduce novel terms in the conclusion. That is not the only problem you failed to use consistent scope phrase/words yet there are no conditionals. There is no way for your premises to interact without either defining categories or conditionals.

The closest valid syllogism (IMO) to your attempt would be:

/Some votes at DDO are correct
/All debates at DDO are decided by votes
//Therefore some debates at DDO are decided correctly

To debate

So this is the format you'd prefer to take up?
If you mean the public approval of an informal fallacy and the 10,000 character limit no it is not.

Ok so they vote on points and the points decide who wins and loses? If I ever get into a car accident I'll try that one, I only twisted the steering wheel it was the front of the car that hit something.

That was the logical fallacy known as the False Analogy.

No it wasn't, the common property was attempting to disconnect an integrated process. Driving a car includes controlling the course of the whole car, and voting includes assigning points for different categories as well as what those points are then used for by the system, namely picking a winner.

A better analogy would be: the soccer team won a game because they performed better. It is not a perfect analogy, but there is a definite way to get points in both situations, and performance of achieving the criteria to get those points is what decides a winner.

The winner of a soccer game is defined as the team with the most goals. The winner of a debate is not defined as the team with the most points or votes. If you said you could decide the winner of a soccer game by taking a poll that would be ad populum as well since how many goals is what matters not how many goals people think there were.

No, because they don't have the man power to go into a full investigation of the debate. It's like the US court of law. Every vote is innocent until someone reports it (presses charges) and they're proven guilty.

Or let go despite being guilty, unlike the justice system there is no good reason to suffer such inaccuracies in this case.

You were probably wrong.

I was not and can prove it.

At 12/8/2013 5:10:47 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Hey Dream, if you hate DDO so much and find it to be so massively faulty and we're all illogical scumbags, here's some other sites for you to spend your massively more intellectual mind on.

http://www.edeb8.com...
http://www.createdebate.com...

I am working on something for createdebate.

Because if you hate this site so much, I still fail to grasp why you're here. That's like complaining about how awful the taste of chicken is before walking into a KFC and ordering the biggest bucket of chicken they have.

Perhaps it would make more sense if you considered me a food critic.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:14:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I looked at the debate in question. Pro did make an argument, although it was obviously fallacious. Pro depended upon a host of unproved assumptions, and equivocated the word "prophet." The best debate practice would be for Con to deny every assumption; demand a proof of the existence of God, of predestination, and so forth. then point out that "prophet" in the sense of the resolution is not the "prophet" that Pro purported to prove. Con didn't do that, assuming that the unproven assumptions were obvious to everyone.

I think the unproven assumptions were obviously missing, so that a general demand for proof is adequate in this case, but I admit it's a close call. Con should learn to load his rebuttal with every argument he can think of, and not leave it to a judgement call on what is prima facie.

There is some minor problem with the debaters on the site have experience in school debate, that leads to overly technical judging. If Pro gives three reasons why the earth is flat, and Con only bothers to refute two of the three, then Pro may win the debate. The idea is that impartial judges are not allowed to bring any significant knowledge of their own to the debate, so it isn't right to demand extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. I think DDO judging should be closer to real-world arguing.

The site has no fault in declaring winners and losers. You accept that in participating on the site.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 6:21:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/8/2013 4:18:35 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 12/8/2013 4:03:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Concluding one side won a debate based on votes (even via points) is an informal fallacy period.

"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion," granted I used Wikipedia for this, but it's a good explanation.

That's the definition of any fallacy.

P1: One can objectively prove that a vote is right.
P2: Votes can possibly determine who performed better in a debate.
C: Voting to determine a winner is not inherently an informal fallacy.

Theres a syllogism for you.

Your 'syllogism' here is neither cogent nor valid. The term informal fallacy appears only in the conclusion, big logic no no to introduce novel terms in the conclusion. That is not the only problem you failed to use consistent scope phrase/words yet there are no conditionals. There is no way for your premises to interact without either defining categories or conditionals.

The closest valid syllogism (IMO) to your attempt would be:

/Some votes at DDO are correct
/All debates at DDO are decided by votes
//Therefore some debates at DDO are decided correctly

Would you mind rephrasing? I still haven't seen where it is you respond to my position that voting is not inherently fallacious, only certain votes are.
To debate

So this is the format you'd prefer to take up?
If you mean the public approval of an informal fallacy and the 10,000 character limit no it is not.

No I mean a forum.

Ok so they vote on points and the points decide who wins and loses? If I ever get into a car accident I'll try that one, I only twisted the steering wheel it was the front of the car that hit something.

That was the logical fallacy known as the False Analogy.

No it wasn't, the common property was attempting to disconnect an integrated process. Driving a car includes controlling the course of the whole car, and voting includes assigning points for different categories as well as what those points are then used for by the system, namely picking a winner.

You didn't make the connection for me.
A better analogy would be: the soccer team won a game because they performed better. It is not a perfect analogy, but there is a definite way to get points in both situations, and performance of achieving the criteria to get those points is what decides a winner.

The winner of a soccer game is defined as the team with the most goals. The winner of a debate is not defined as the team with the most points or votes. If you said you could decide the winner of a soccer game by taking a poll that would be ad populum as well since how many goals is what matters not how many goals people think there were.

I'm sorry, isn't your entire problem with this website that the winner of a debate is determined by how many points they get? This entire time you seem to just be mad that debate is something of a sport on here (as it is in a lot of scenarios).

Keep in mind I acknowledged the fact that it's not a perfect analogy, I just really didn't care enough to come up with a better one.
No, because they don't have the man power to go into a full investigation of the debate. It's like the US court of law. Every vote is innocent until someone reports it (presses charges) and they're proven guilty.

Or let go despite me screaming at the tv because I think they're guilty just because Fox News, CNN, ABC and MSN told me so. Unlike the justice system, who's reason to suffer certain inaccuracies is to keep the system from becoming corrupted beyond repair, there is no good reason to suffer such inaccuracies in this case.

You were probably wrong.

I was not and can prove it.

Then do it. Don't just claim you can.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 12:22:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:14:44 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The site has no fault in declaring winners and losers. You accept that in participating on the site.

Why? If I tried to sell lettuce as broccoli I am guilty of false advertising, if someone complains they wanted broccoli not lettuce I cannot say "you accept that by buying the lettuce" and be any less at fault.

At 12/8/2013 10:26:35 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
Would you mind rephrasing? I still haven't seen where it is you respond to my position that voting is not inherently fallacious, only certain votes are.

1. Your syllogism is invalid.

2. Voting is simply making a statement, statements are not inherently fallacious and cannot be because they are statements not arguments. An argument is an attempt to support a certain statement (the conclusion). It is only the idea that you can support a statement of which side won a debate with votes that is fallacious because votes (the premise) do not imply a winner (the conclusion).

3. You have pointed out that votes can be substantiated, that is true; just as statements can be substantiated. You have pointed out that votes can be correct, as statements can be truthful. Yet fallacy remains and it is always with the attempt to support the statement or the attempt to use the statement as support rather than the statement itself.

No I mean a forum.
Well the forums don't have the voting problem but the voting attitude fostered by the site is still there, and there is still the character limits. If you are trying to say there are sites out there with only forums (and better functionality IMO) yes I agree I have been (and still am) on many of them.

I'm sorry, isn't your entire problem with this website that the winner of a debate is determined by how many points they get?

Yes, and the way people here see this as natural and authoritative.

This entire time you seem to just be mad that debate is something of a sport on here (as it is in a lot of scenarios).
The rules of sport are arbitrary, designed for fun and subject to revision in interest of 'fair play' or 'inclusiveness' the rules of truth, logic, and thus debate are not. That is why treating debate as a sport is incorrect.

I used the analogy you gave me. The only time ad populum isn't fallacious is when your conclusion is that most people approve (or disapprove) of something. The rules of soccer do not fall under that definition thus ad populum is a fallacy when applied to concluding the winner of a soccer match.

Or let go despite me screaming at the tv because I think they're guilty just because Fox News, CNN, ABC and MSN told me so. Unlike the justice system, who's reason to suffer certain inaccuracies is to keep the system from becoming corrupted beyond repair, there is no good reason to suffer such inaccuracies in this case.

I really hope that's not an intentional misquote.... I hate that.

You were probably wrong.

I was not and can prove it.

Then do it. Don't just claim you can.

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

Beverlee's vote.

"Reasons for voting decision: Pro offers a surprisingly effective justification of "consent" by including body language as a form of communication. But bestiality is still illegal, as Con points out. It is also rejected in the strongest possible terms by society, as Con also points out. Con unfortunately becomes a bit hostile towards the end, comparing Pro's position to rape, but I didn't think that he was doing this as an ad hom personal attack. (Maybe poisoning the well.) Con's strong assertion that Pro did not meet the BoP, was important for the score I gave."

My comments at the time:

@Beverlee I know this may seem petty but I can't help but notice some very very unfortunate things in your reasons for vote. You have clearly taken CON at his word about my burden of proof and accepted an inaccurate impression of the debate.

"But bestiality is still illegal"
That is irrelevant to the resolution.

"It is also rejected in the strongest possible terms by society"
Ad Populum fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org......

"a bit hostile towards the end, comparing Pro's position to rape"
That was one of the few things he did right, if animals refuse to consent then having sex with them is rape, albeit differentiable from the rape of humans as he tried to deny.

"Con's strong assertion that Pro did not meet the BoP, was important for the score I gave. "
You admit you based your decision on my opponents assertion? Did you happen to read it and see if I actually failed to meet the BoP implied by my resolution and the definitions I used? Your reasons statement itself displayed a misunderstanding of the resolution.

I'm sorry but this vote appears to be clearly unfair and IMO caused primarily by the use of big bolded letters by CON. I have reported it, whether or not it is rescinded I stand by my claim that however well meaning this vote is baseless.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 8:17:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 12:22:25 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:14:44 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The site has no fault in declaring winners and losers. You accept that in participating on the site.

Why? If I tried to sell lettuce as broccoli I am guilty of false advertising, if someone complains they wanted broccoli not lettuce I cannot say "you accept that by buying the lettuce" and be any less at fault.

At 12/8/2013 10:26:35 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
Would you mind rephrasing? I still haven't seen where it is you respond to my position that voting is not inherently fallacious, only certain votes are.

1. Your syllogism is invalid.

2. Voting is simply making a statement, statements are not inherently fallacious and cannot be because they are statements not arguments. An argument is an attempt to support a certain statement (the conclusion). It is only the idea that you can support a statement of which side won a debate with votes that is fallacious because votes (the premise) do not imply a winner (the conclusion).

3. You have pointed out that votes can be substantiated, that is true; just as statements can be substantiated. You have pointed out that votes can be correct, as statements can be truthful. Yet fallacy remains and it is always with the attempt to support the statement or the attempt to use the statement as support rather than the statement itself.

Based on the agreed fact that votes do not inherently undermine the desired conclusion, I fail to see what makes them a fallacy.
No I mean a forum.
Well the forums don't have the voting problem but the voting attitude fostered by the site is still there, and there is still the character limits. If you are trying to say there are sites out there with only forums (and better functionality IMO) yes I agree I have been (and still am) on many of them.

So is there nothing on this site for you to actually enjoy?

I'm sorry, isn't your entire problem with this website that the winner of a debate is determined by how many points they get?

Yes, and the way people here see this as natural and authoritative.

This entire time you seem to just be mad that debate is something of a sport on here (as it is in a lot of scenarios).
The rules of sport are arbitrary, designed for fun and subject to revision in interest of 'fair play' or 'inclusiveness' the rules of truth, logic, and thus debate are not. That is why treating debate as a sport is incorrect.

I used the analogy you gave me. The only time ad populum isn't fallacious is when your conclusion is that most people approve (or disapprove) of something. The rules of soccer do not fall under that definition thus ad populum is a fallacy when applied to concluding the winner of a soccer match.

I'll let the analogy thing go. It's not worth debating over seeing as that leads us into a red herring strain of arguments.
Or let go despite me screaming at the tv because I think they're guilty just because Fox News, CNN, ABC and MSN told me so. Unlike the justice system, who's reason to suffer certain inaccuracies is to keep the system from becoming corrupted beyond repair, there is no good reason to suffer such inaccuracies in this case.

I really hope that's not an intentional misquote.... I hate that.

That's a bit unfortunate
You were probably wrong.

I was not and can prove it.

Then do it. Don't just claim you can.

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

Beverlee's vote.

"Reasons for voting decision: Pro offers a surprisingly effective justification of "consent" by including body language as a form of communication. But bestiality is still illegal, as Con points out. It is also rejected in the strongest possible terms by society, as Con also points out. Con unfortunately becomes a bit hostile towards the end, comparing Pro's position to rape, but I didn't think that he was doing this as an ad hom personal attack. (Maybe poisoning the well.) Con's strong assertion that Pro did not meet the BoP, was important for the score I gave."

My comments at the time:

@Beverlee I know this may seem petty but I can't help but notice some very very unfortunate things in your reasons for vote. You have clearly taken CON at his word about my burden of proof and accepted an inaccurate impression of the debate.

"But bestiality is still illegal"
That is irrelevant to the resolution.

"It is also rejected in the strongest possible terms by society"
Ad Populum fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org......

"a bit hostile towards the end, comparing Pro's position to rape"
That was one of the few things he did right, if animals refuse to consent then having sex with them is rape, albeit differentiable from the rape of humans as he tried to deny.

"Con's strong assertion that Pro did not meet the BoP, was important for the score I gave. "
You admit you based your decision on my opponents assertion? Did you happen to read it and see if I actually failed to meet the BoP implied by my resolution and the definitions I used? Your reasons statement itself displayed a misunderstanding of the resolution.

I'm sorry but this vote appears to be clearly unfair and IMO caused primarily by the use of big bolded letters by CON. I have reported it, whether or not it is rescinded I stand by my claim that however well meaning this vote is baseless.

That's debatable.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.