Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Truism = auto-loss? *

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:36:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just read imabench's debate about poop for the first time due to the other thread. Really funny stuff. http://www.debate.org...

I don't know - generally - how I feel about a troll debate argument winning, even if it is funnier and better articulated than the other side - but I feel like in this case I was persuaded that it was okay when imabench concluded by saying - "this is what you get for making a stupid topic just for an easy win." So in this case, it seems justified since DNA being in poop is just a fact. It's a debate that would otherwise just sit as an open challenge forever, or someone with no knowledge of biology would accidentally take it and lose.

In college parliamentary debate, where there is an instigator who drafts a topic, the other side can always argue that the topic is a truism - meaning a case that no honest, thinking person could reasonably oppose. Once the other side says "truism," the instigator has to prove that there are arguments for the other side. The other side can argue that those arguments are far too dumb or unreasonable and that they could never win.

If the judge finds the topic to be a truism, the debater automatically loses.

What do you guys think? Would you adopt a community standard that if a topic really is a truism, it is an automatic loss if the other side proves that there are no reasonable arguments for the other side?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:59:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 12:36:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Just read imabench's debate about poop for the first time due to the other thread. Really funny stuff. http://www.debate.org...

I don't know - generally - how I feel about a troll debate argument winning, even if it is funnier and better articulated than the other side - but I feel like in this case I was persuaded that it was okay when imabench concluded by saying - "this is what you get for making a stupid topic just for an easy win." So in this case, it seems justified since DNA being in poop is just a fact. It's a debate that would otherwise just sit as an open challenge forever, or someone with no knowledge of biology would accidentally take it and lose.

In college parliamentary debate, where there is an instigator who drafts a topic, the other side can always argue that the topic is a truism - meaning a case that no honest, thinking person could reasonably oppose. Once the other side says "truism," the instigator has to prove that there are arguments for the other side. The other side can argue that those arguments are far too dumb or unreasonable and that they could never win.

If the judge finds the topic to be a truism, the debater automatically loses.

What do you guys think? Would you adopt a community standard that if a topic really is a truism, it is an automatic loss if the other side proves that there are no reasonable arguments for the other side?

Yes. Help eliminate some of the stupid from the debate section.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 7:58:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are an alt of Inferno? *

I believe it says some where in one of the sticky threads that if someone makes a debate that is obviously true and gets trolled, members are allowed and encouraged to vote against them.
0x5f3759df
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 8:53:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 12:36:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
What do you guys think? Would you adopt a community standard that if a topic really is a truism, it is an automatic loss if the other side proves that there are no reasonable arguments for the other side?

I don't think we're going to have that big of a change around here; but I do like the basic idea of being able to force someone to prove there is another side to their argument.

It has a lot of merit, because if there is no sane contest to the points presented by one side; they have nothing but assertions, and thus the instigator has not actually made an argument.

I can just imagine someone calling a 9/11 idiot out on Truism, and watch them fumble trying to defend what really happened (sorry, I don't believe UFO's or Invisible Pink Ninjas were involved).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...