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

How Should Voters Vote?

Ajab
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 2:52:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It my opinion that voters should vote only on the content that is mentioned inside the debate. So that if they personally feel an argument to be fallacious however that argument's fallacies were not shown by the other side the vote should still go to the arguer.

The purpose of judging debates is to appraise the debaters not necessarily the arguments. If one side lays a horrible argument but the other side more or less forfeits does this not mean that the original arguer should get the vote? I believe he/she should.
#StandWithBossy
#Addison/Blade-of-Truth: I slapped a girl on the arse once with a piece of uncooked chicken, things got weird.
You threw it away, right? -Ajab
...
Oh lord did you eat it?
...maybe!
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 2:52:17 AM, Ajab wrote:
It my opinion that voters should vote only on the content that is mentioned inside the debate. So that if they personally feel an argument to be fallacious however that argument's fallacies were not shown by the other side the vote should still go to the arguer.

The purpose of judging debates is to appraise the debaters not necessarily the arguments. If one side lays a horrible argument but the other side more or less forfeits does this not mean that the original arguer should get the vote? I believe he/she should.

I agree, mostly. Two things, though.

1) In the situation you've outlined, if the original debater makes an argument that definitely never reaches his BoP and the other debater essentially says nothing, I'm still justified to vote against the original debater. As long as that original debater holds the BoP, the other debater is not required to say anything to win.

2) There's a difference between saying an argument is fallacious based on outside reasoning and showing how what was argued in the round, even by the debater themselves, made their argument fallacious. Even if the other debater doesn't show where it is, if I see an obvious contradiction, it's likely to factor into my decision. Beyond that, if the debater makes an argument that's obviously not true, I'm not going to simply keep my distance and accept it, though this has to be something very apparent. If someone says "the sky is always purple," I don't require a response from the opponent to accept that that statement is obviously false.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 2:48:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 1:10:02 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 6/15/2014 2:52:17 AM, Ajab wrote:
It my opinion that voters should vote only on the content that is mentioned inside the debate. So that if they personally feel an argument to be fallacious however that argument's fallacies were not shown by the other side the vote should still go to the arguer.

The purpose of judging debates is to appraise the debaters not necessarily the arguments. If one side lays a horrible argument but the other side more or less forfeits does this not mean that the original arguer should get the vote? I believe he/she should.

I agree, mostly. Two things, though.

1) In the situation you've outlined, if the original debater makes an argument that definitely never reaches his BoP and the other debater essentially says nothing, I'm still justified to vote against the original debater. As long as that original debater holds the BoP, the other debater is not required to say anything to win.

2) There's a difference between saying an argument is fallacious based on outside reasoning and showing how what was argued in the round, even by the debater themselves, made their argument fallacious. Even if the other debater doesn't show where it is, if I see an obvious contradiction, it's likely to factor into my decision. Beyond that, if the debater makes an argument that's obviously not true, I'm not going to simply keep my distance and accept it, though this has to be something very apparent. If someone says "the sky is always purple," I don't require a response from the opponent to accept that that statement is obviously false.

I'm glad you're not voting on my flat Earth debate.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:02:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 2:48:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/15/2014 1:10:02 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 6/15/2014 2:52:17 AM, Ajab wrote:
It my opinion that voters should vote only on the content that is mentioned inside the debate. So that if they personally feel an argument to be fallacious however that argument's fallacies were not shown by the other side the vote should still go to the arguer.

The purpose of judging debates is to appraise the debaters not necessarily the arguments. If one side lays a horrible argument but the other side more or less forfeits does this not mean that the original arguer should get the vote? I believe he/she should.

I agree, mostly. Two things, though.

1) In the situation you've outlined, if the original debater makes an argument that definitely never reaches his BoP and the other debater essentially says nothing, I'm still justified to vote against the original debater. As long as that original debater holds the BoP, the other debater is not required to say anything to win.

2) There's a difference between saying an argument is fallacious based on outside reasoning and showing how what was argued in the round, even by the debater themselves, made their argument fallacious. Even if the other debater doesn't show where it is, if I see an obvious contradiction, it's likely to factor into my decision. Beyond that, if the debater makes an argument that's obviously not true, I'm not going to simply keep my distance and accept it, though this has to be something very apparent. If someone says "the sky is always purple," I don't require a response from the opponent to accept that that statement is obviously false.

I'm glad you're not voting on my flat Earth debate.

Heh, I suppose I should have clarified this more, but there's a difference between making the statement "the world is flat," and developing a full argument for it. If you're taking the time to warrant the statement and even provide evidence, then I'd consider it. But yeah, I won't be voting on yours anyway, so I guess it doens't matter.
Ajab
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:05:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think what Marc is trying to say is if someone says the sky can be purple then goes on to give a technical argument on how once every few million years a pulsar comes our way which bends due to the Suns gravity and creates an array of purple light, he will consider it.
Interestingly a supernova not many thousand light years from Earth will occur soon no latter than 2028, when it does for 2 weeks a beautiful light will come to Earth. Technically the supernova has already exploded but it takes light around 100.000 years to reach us here :P.
#StandWithBossy
#Addison/Blade-of-Truth: I slapped a girl on the arse once with a piece of uncooked chicken, things got weird.
You threw it away, right? -Ajab
...
Oh lord did you eat it?
...maybe!