Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Introducing new arguments in last round

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:36:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I'm about to finish this debate but I'm not allowed (per the terms) to introduce new arguments or evidence.

What, exactly, is new arguments and evidence?

Are there only general guidelines for what constitutes them, or is it obvious? I'm afraid to discredit my opponent's sources in the last round because revealing things about the sources might be "new evidence" or "new arguments."
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think there's a fine line to producing a new argument and addressing lingering claims -- e.g., a rebuttal made in the previous round.

If you're intending to discredit a source he just used, that you couldn't have addressed earlier, I personally don't see much of a problem with it. Now, if you needed to conduct extensive research in order to do so, that's another story.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:38:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 2:36:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
So I'm about to finish this debate but I'm not allowed (per the terms) to introduce new arguments or evidence.

What, exactly, is new arguments and evidence?

Are there only general guidelines for what constitutes them, or is it obvious? I'm afraid to discredit my opponent's sources in the last round because revealing things about the sources might be "new evidence" or "new arguments."

They are not.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:48:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
New arguments are claims or attacks made that have no basis or link into arguments made previously. If I pull out an argument that hasn't been made or refrrenced anywhere else in the debate in the final round, that's a new argument.

Whether it's an abusive new argument is debatable. If it's a new response to an argument made just in the previous round, it's not necessarily unfair because that round was the only round you had to reply to it. If there's an argument made in the first round adn you wait until the final round to reply to it, that's unfair and abusive because it's been sitting there and you wait until your opponent can't respond to it to address it, which is highly unfair.

So in short, it depends on the argument you want to make on whether it's a "new argument"
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 3:34:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?

Because the entire concept of new arguments is that you're making an argument that's abusive because of when it was made, not the content of the argument. We make arguments that stand on their own without context throughout all points of the debate. That doesn't make them abusive.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 3:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 3:34:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?

Because the entire concept of new arguments is that you're making an argument that's abusive because of when it was made, not the content of the argument. We make arguments that stand on their own without context throughout all points of the debate. That doesn't make them abusive.

In no way is an argument "new" on the basis of whether or not it is abusive. You're putting the cart before the horse. An argument is "new" if it has not already been presented in the debate. However, as applies to the rule "No new arguments in round X", I think the only sensible interpretation of "arguments" is the one I posted.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 4:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

*provided, of course, that it hasn't already been made.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 4:03:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In simple terms: Don't have an epiphany.
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...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 4:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 3:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:34:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?

Because the entire concept of new arguments is that you're making an argument that's abusive because of when it was made, not the content of the argument. We make arguments that stand on their own without context throughout all points of the debate. That doesn't make them abusive.

In no way is an argument "new" on the basis of whether or not it is abusive. You're putting the cart before the horse. An argument is "new" if it has not already been presented in the debate. However, as applies to the rule "No new arguments in round X", I think the only sensible interpretation of "arguments" is the one I posted.

Just because it being "new" as in never being made doesn't make it a "new argument". The entire point of saying "No new arguments in X Round" is to prevent people from waiting until the final round to respond to certain arguments or to make whole new lines of argumentation, which is highly unfair since it gives your opponent little to no time to respond to it. If it's a five round debate and your opponent makes a new argument in round four, a new response by you in round five is technically a new argument because it hasn't been made anywhere else, but it isn't a "new argument" because it was the first time you could have made the argument. The entire term is based off of an argument that's abusive because of when it was made. It has nothing to do with the actual argument itself, rather when it's made.

Come on, this is like Debating 101. You should know better.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 4:45:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 4:07:39 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:34:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?

Because the entire concept of new arguments is that you're making an argument that's abusive because of when it was made, not the content of the argument. We make arguments that stand on their own without context throughout all points of the debate. That doesn't make them abusive.

In no way is an argument "new" on the basis of whether or not it is abusive. You're putting the cart before the horse. An argument is "new" if it has not already been presented in the debate. However, as applies to the rule "No new arguments in round X", I think the only sensible interpretation of "arguments" is the one I posted.

Just because it being "new" as in never being made doesn't make it a "new argument".

I agree. I'm simply saying that in this context, a 'new argument' is an argument that is both new and abusive when posted in the last round. In other words, I'm defining 'aruments' as 'only those arguments that are abusive when posted in the last round.'

The entire point of saying "No new arguments in X Round" is to prevent people from waiting until the final round to respond to certain arguments or to make whole new lines of argumentation, which is highly unfair since it gives your opponent little to no time to respond to it. If it's a five round debate and your opponent makes a new argument in round four, a new response by you in round five is technically a new argument because it hasn't been made anywhere else, but it isn't a "new argument" because it was the first time you could have made the argument. The entire term is based off of an argument that's abusive because of when it was made. It has nothing to do with the actual argument itself, rather when it's made.

Come on, this is like Debating 101. You should know better.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 5:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 4:07:39 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:34:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?

Because the entire concept of new arguments is that you're making an argument that's abusive because of when it was made, not the content of the argument. We make arguments that stand on their own without context throughout all points of the debate. That doesn't make them abusive.

In no way is an argument "new" on the basis of whether or not it is abusive. You're putting the cart before the horse. An argument is "new" if it has not already been presented in the debate. However, as applies to the rule "No new arguments in round X", I think the only sensible interpretation of "arguments" is the one I posted.

Just because it being "new" as in never being made doesn't make it a "new argument".

I agree. I'm simply saying that in this context, a 'new argument' is an argument that is both new and abusive when posted in the last round. In other words, I'm defining 'aruments' as 'only those arguments that are abusive when posted in the last round.'

Like, what you're misunderstanding though is it's not a both thing. It's not a new AND abusive, rather abusive BECAUSE its new. Lots of arguments we categorize as "new arguments" wouldn't actually be abusive had they been posted earlier. It's the sole fact that they were posted when they were that makes them abusive.

Savvy?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 7:15:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 5:20:20 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 4:07:39 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:34:25 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:23:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The way I see it, a new argument is an argument that could stand on its own i.e. without the context of the debate.

You would be wrong, by the way. Not even close to what a new argument is.

I was trying to say basically what you said. How exactly is this different?

Because the entire concept of new arguments is that you're making an argument that's abusive because of when it was made, not the content of the argument. We make arguments that stand on their own without context throughout all points of the debate. That doesn't make them abusive.

In no way is an argument "new" on the basis of whether or not it is abusive. You're putting the cart before the horse. An argument is "new" if it has not already been presented in the debate. However, as applies to the rule "No new arguments in round X", I think the only sensible interpretation of "arguments" is the one I posted.

Just because it being "new" as in never being made doesn't make it a "new argument".

I agree. I'm simply saying that in this context, a 'new argument' is an argument that is both new and abusive when posted in the last round. In other words, I'm defining 'aruments' as 'only those arguments that are abusive when posted in the last round.'

Like, what you're misunderstanding though is it's not a both thing. It's not a new AND abusive, rather abusive BECAUSE its new.

You missed the point. "Abusive...round" was referring to the ARGUMENTS that would be abusive IF they were posted in the last round.

Lots of arguments we categorize as "new arguments" wouldn't actually be abusive had they been posted earlier. It's the sole fact that they were posted when they were that makes them abusive.

Savvy?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 7:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 7:15:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You missed the point. "Abusive...round" was referring to the ARGUMENTS that would be abusive IF they were posted in the last round.

Now if only you had said that instead of the wonky weird hogwash you said earlier! We would've saved a whole lot of time.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 7:46:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 7:35:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:15:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You missed the point. "Abusive...round" was referring to the ARGUMENTS that would be abusive IF they were posted in the last round.


Now if only you had said that instead of the wonky weird hogwash you said earlier! We would've saved a whole lot of time.

Haha, I know.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...
-- 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 --
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:45:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...

And for arguments that don't require sources....?

Back to the drawing board kiddo :)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:45:49 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...

And for arguments that don't require sources....?

Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

If it doesn't require sources... It's fair game lol. Any new argument should always have sources.
-- 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 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:51:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

I'm older than you XD
-- 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 --
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:50:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:45:49 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...

And for arguments that don't require sources....?

Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

If it doesn't require sources... It's fair game lol. Any new argument should always have sources.

Alright everyone take note: if you're debating donald, so long as your argument doesn't have a source, you can save everything for the last round so that he can't respond to it and he'll consider it fair game. FREE WINS FOR ALLLLLLLL!!! :3
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:51:34 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

I'm older than you XD

Are you really?

xD Whoops. Sorry kiddo. :^)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:55:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 4:03:48 PM, Ragnar wrote:
In simple terms: Don't have an epiphany.

I like this advice :P
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:56:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:53:55 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:50:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:45:49 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...

And for arguments that don't require sources....?

Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

If it doesn't require sources... It's fair game lol. Any new argument should always have sources.

Alright everyone take note: if you're debating donald, so long as your argument doesn't have a source, you can save everything for the last round so that he can't respond to it and he'll consider it fair game. FREE WINS FOR ALLLLLLLL!!! :3

Lol. I keep my rules simple... The way I see it, every rule has exceptions, so as you remember that, you shouldn't have to make large complicated rules to account for everything XD
-- 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 --
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:57:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:56:05 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:53:55 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:50:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:45:49 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...

And for arguments that don't require sources....?

Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

If it doesn't require sources... It's fair game lol. Any new argument should always have sources.

Alright everyone take note: if you're debating donald, so long as your argument doesn't have a source, you can save everything for the last round so that he can't respond to it and he'll consider it fair game. FREE WINS FOR ALLLLLLLL!!! :3

Lol. I keep my rules simple... The way I see it, every rule has exceptions, so as you remember that, you shouldn't have to make large complicated rules to account for everything XD

Except this rule isn't complicated at all xD
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 9:03:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:57:38 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:56:05 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:53:55 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:50:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:45:49 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:04:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Here is how I see it... If it requires new Definitions or Sources, it'd bad. If it reuses old sources, it's good.

The opponent is responsible to reading your sources, so nothing in the sources should than be "new arguments." Don't push that last statement too far though...

And for arguments that don't require sources....?

Back to the drawing board kiddo :)

If it doesn't require sources... It's fair game lol. Any new argument should always have sources.

Alright everyone take note: if you're debating donald, so long as your argument doesn't have a source, you can save everything for the last round so that he can't respond to it and he'll consider it fair game. FREE WINS FOR ALLLLLLLL!!! :3

Lol. I keep my rules simple... The way I see it, every rule has exceptions, so as you remember that, you shouldn't have to make large complicated rules to account for everything XD

Except this rule isn't complicated at all xD

That's the point... Not complicated at all XD I understand the exceptions, so I need not complicate the rules to account for them.
-- 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 --
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 9:06:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 9:03:02 PM, donald.keller wrote:

That's the point... Not complicated at all XD I understand the exceptions, so I need not complicate the rules to account for them.

But....like....sources....don't...

No. Bad Zaradi. You just did this earlier. Don't waste another 20 posts talking past each other.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...