Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A bit frustrated

GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:17:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, that is actually very annoying. Its serious resolution sniping. I once debated a man that the USD should deflated on another website, and he made some ridiculous argument like....

"You haven't even proven we need money"

Dude, WTF?
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:39:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

It is annoying and rude. It also has the effect of stifling debate because inexperienced noobs get sniped like this and never return. It can be clarified in the resolution, but it shouldn't be necessary to do.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 9:01:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sometimes the results can be amusing:

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

I myself sometimes argue against gay marriage by arguing that all marriage is immoral, etc.

But I can see how it would drive away members...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:16:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 9:32:56 AM, Romanii wrote:
Lololol Mikal...

No I think this is fair. I've yet to read it, but I think Mikal might have gone too far in this.

It is like our upcoming debate on always telling the truth. It would be like me questioning the existence of anything to show that there is actually something to be true. It would be a copout on my part.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:51:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:16:29 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/19/2014 9:32:56 AM, Romanii wrote:
Lololol Mikal...

No I think this is fair. I've yet to read it, but I think Mikal might have gone too far in this.

It is like our upcoming debate on always telling the truth. It would be like me questioning the existence of anything to show that there is actually something to be true. It would be a copout on my part.

No that's a valid form of argumentation called a kritik. The resolution is making an assumption (in this instance that something exists) and you're free to call that out as a way to show the resolution to be false.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:56:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

Your resolution was that the Bible was infallible. Obviously if it was assumed that the Christian God already existed then there would be no debate.
Nolite Timere
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:57:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:56:12 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

Your resolution was that the Bible was infallible. Obviously if it was assumed that the Christian God already existed then there would be no debate.

No, this post does not have to do with my resolution. I made this post when I saw newcomers who got resolution-sniped when they were trying to argue about doctrines.
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:58:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:56:12 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

Your resolution was that the Bible was infallible. Obviously if it was assumed that the Christian God already existed then there would be no debate.

I mean, if the resolution is the infallibility, then of course I'd have to prove God's existence. But then again, that's not what I am talking about. This is totally unrelated.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 11:00:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:57:43 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:56:12 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

Your resolution was that the Bible was infallible. Obviously if it was assumed that the Christian God already existed then there would be no debate.

No, this post does not have to do with my resolution. I made this post when I saw newcomers who got resolution-sniped when they were trying to argue about doctrines.

Oh yeah, then I agree. Same goes with debates like "It is immoral to lie" and then someone argues that all morality is subjective or that morality does not exist.
Nolite Timere
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:32:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.

It was also one point out of like 10

Proving God does not exist was just one step in a long process of disproving the credibility of the bible. The hinge of the debate lied on the word infallible. meaning its perfect, if any part of the bible is fallible the resolution is negated. Proving God does not exists helps add credibility to the previous point. If he is not able to show God exists, and I can show how and why we exist without God, then it negates for the need for a God. Then I just have to throw in points like the big bang, and show how the bible is fallible.

It was far funner than just bringing up like 200 contradictions. Literal Biblical interpretations are to easy to shoot down with the multiple contradictions in the bible. Much more fun to argue it scientifically.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:36:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Well, a statement like "God is not immoral" would presuppose the existence of God.

Besides, if you tried to prove God didn't exist, that would just support Pro, as something that does not exist cannot be immoral ...
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:49:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:36:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Well, a statement like "God is not immoral" would presuppose the existence of God.

Besides, if you tried to prove God didn't exist, that would just support Pro, as something that does not exist cannot be immoral ...

Right and that's why it would be a bad kritik to run in that case. A resolution like "God is not immoral" is dumb anyway, because Aff should be an affirmative statement not a negative one...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:52:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.

So you've seen people argue, they should win a debate based on the color of their skin?
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:52:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.

Yeah, but often times, the opponents do a disservice to newcomers. The newcomers don't have much experience, so they should take it easy.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:55:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:52:51 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.

Yeah, but often times, the opponents do a disservice to newcomers. The newcomers don't have much experience, so they should take it easy.

I disagree. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that the type of people who would most likely stick around are those who love a challenge. If they aren't sufficiently challenged, they may find the place boring. Look at the people who stick around. They pretty much all love tough debates.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:56:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:52:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.

So you've seen people argue, they should win a debate based on the color of their skin?

Yeah it's....it's pretty stupid. I've never *judged* a round like that. If I did, I would vote them down and give them bottom speaker points for racism. A good buddy of mine lost his final debate round, a loss that kept him from going to to elimination rounds at the state tournament, because of the blackness K. Apparently the judge said "I voted for who was more black". Shitt like that is what is killing policy debate
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:58:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:55:27 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:51 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.

Yeah, but often times, the opponents do a disservice to newcomers. The newcomers don't have much experience, so they should take it easy.

I disagree. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that the type of people who would most likely stick around are those who love a challenge. If they aren't sufficiently challenged, they may find the place boring. Look at the people who stick around. They pretty much all love tough debates.

But what kind of a newcomer would want consider it a pleasant experience when the debate is headed to an unexpected direction?

Like, I know some guy who was trying to argue that speaking in tongues (a spiritual gift as per the Bible) is for today, and then his opponent gave him the burden of proving God's existence. As a result, the newcomer did not seem so happy.

Here is the link:
http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:01:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.

So you've seen people argue, they should win a debate based on the color of their skin?

Yeah it's....it's pretty stupid. I've never *judged* a round like that. If I did, I would vote them down and give them bottom speaker points for racism. A good buddy of mine lost his final debate round, a loss that kept him from going to to elimination rounds at the state tournament, because of the blackness K. Apparently the judge said "I voted for who was more black". Shitt like that is what is killing policy debate

That shirt is more the judges' fault than anybody's. If it was a good mix of judges with various political ideologies than a win like that probably couldn't have occurred. I just can't imagine a panel of conservatives allowing that type of kritik to win.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:03:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:01:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.

So you've seen people argue, they should win a debate based on the color of their skin?

Yeah it's....it's pretty stupid. I've never *judged* a round like that. If I did, I would vote them down and give them bottom speaker points for racism. A good buddy of mine lost his final debate round, a loss that kept him from going to to elimination rounds at the state tournament, because of the blackness K. Apparently the judge said "I voted for who was more black". Shitt like that is what is killing policy debate

That shirt is more the judges' fault than anybody's. If it was a good mix of judges with various political ideologies than a win like that probably couldn't have occurred. I just can't imagine a panel of conservatives allowing that type of kritik to win.

This video basically shows the issues with policy debate right now. The kind of stuff people are getting away with...and no, this is not at all satirical.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:58:50 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:55:27 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:51 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.

Yeah, but often times, the opponents do a disservice to newcomers. The newcomers don't have much experience, so they should take it easy.

I disagree. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that the type of people who would most likely stick around are those who love a challenge. If they aren't sufficiently challenged, they may find the place boring. Look at the people who stick around. They pretty much all love tough debates.

But what kind of a newcomer would want consider it a pleasant experience when the debate is headed to an unexpected direction?

Like, I know some guy who was trying to argue that speaking in tongues (a spiritual gift as per the Bible) is for today, and then his opponent gave him the burden of proving God's existence. As a result, the newcomer did not seem so happy.

Here is the link:
http://www.debate.org...

That debate took place over 4 years ago. Also the resolution left a lot of room for play, which benefited pro as much as it benefited con. The debater should have tried his best to prove God through some obscure philosophical stuff, to save the debate. He could have also argued that he doesn't need to prove God or numerous other options.

He should have also walked away from that with a knowledge of how to more carefully craft resolutions, and a better foundation for his beliefs. He also hopefully learned to improve his research skills.

If the guy has the proper attitude that matches what those more inclined to stick around have. I'm sure he'll walk away from that debate a better debater than when he went into it.
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:16:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:12:51 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:58:50 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:55:27 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:51 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.

Yeah, but often times, the opponents do a disservice to newcomers. The newcomers don't have much experience, so they should take it easy.

I disagree. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that the type of people who would most likely stick around are those who love a challenge. If they aren't sufficiently challenged, they may find the place boring. Look at the people who stick around. They pretty much all love tough debates.

But what kind of a newcomer would want consider it a pleasant experience when the debate is headed to an unexpected direction?

Like, I know some guy who was trying to argue that speaking in tongues (a spiritual gift as per the Bible) is for today, and then his opponent gave him the burden of proving God's existence. As a result, the newcomer did not seem so happy.

Here is the link:
http://www.debate.org...

That debate took place over 4 years ago. Also the resolution left a lot of room for play, which benefited pro as much as it benefited con. The debater should have tried his best to prove God through some obscure philosophical stuff, to save the debate. He could have also argued that he doesn't need to prove God or numerous other options.

He should have also walked away from that with a knowledge of how to more carefully craft resolutions, and a better foundation for his beliefs. He also hopefully learned to improve his research skills.

If the guy has the proper attitude that matches what those more inclined to stick around have. I'm sure he'll walk away from that debate a better debater than when he went into it.

True, but I think his opponent (who is clearly more experienced) should not have changed the direction of the debate. He was just exploiting the newcomer's lack of experience for an easy win. The least he could have done was just presuppose the Bible is true and argue that speaking in tongues is not for today.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:16:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:03:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:01:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 11:15:21 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:59:03 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:49:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
"This debate presumes the existence of the Biblical God."

One sentence. That's all it would take in the first round to preclude arguments like this. The goal of the negative is to disprove the resolution in any way possible. If you aren't prepared to rebut their points, you deserve to lose the round. This idea that you should somehow be able to control the arguments your opponents make is pretty ridiculous and flys completely in the face of what debate is supposed to be. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy and aff doesn't prove that God even exists than clearly they've lost the debate.

Kritiks are still bullsh*t though.

I don't agree. They certainly *can* be but if the resolution is "X is immoral" and neg runs the K that the resolution is flawed because morality is inherently subjective and we can never definitively declare anything as "immoral" I think that's a good and fair argument. Of course sometimes you get completely ridiculously kritiks ("debate is inherently discriminatory towards blacks vote for us because we represent the marginalized black body") but you don't usually see that on DDO. Mikals kritik that God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable.

So you've seen people argue, they should win a debate based on the color of their skin?

Yeah it's....it's pretty stupid. I've never *judged* a round like that. If I did, I would vote them down and give them bottom speaker points for racism. A good buddy of mine lost his final debate round, a loss that kept him from going to to elimination rounds at the state tournament, because of the blackness K. Apparently the judge said "I voted for who was more black". Shitt like that is what is killing policy debate

That shirt is more the judges' fault than anybody's. If it was a good mix of judges with various political ideologies than a win like that probably couldn't have occurred. I just can't imagine a panel of conservatives allowing that type of kritik to win.

This video basically shows the issues with policy debate right now. The kind of stuff people are getting away with...and no, this is not at all satirical.

I could only get through half of that. Certainly interesting.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:18:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:16:10 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:12:51 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:58:50 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:55:27 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:52:51 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:50:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

You're just asking for way too much control over what your opponents argue.

Yeah, but often times, the opponents do a disservice to newcomers. The newcomers don't have much experience, so they should take it easy.

I disagree. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that the type of people who would most likely stick around are those who love a challenge. If they aren't sufficiently challenged, they may find the place boring. Look at the people who stick around. They pretty much all love tough debates.

But what kind of a newcomer would want consider it a pleasant experience when the debate is headed to an unexpected direction?

Like, I know some guy who was trying to argue that speaking in tongues (a spiritual gift as per the Bible) is for today, and then his opponent gave him the burden of proving God's existence. As a result, the newcomer did not seem so happy.

Here is the link:
http://www.debate.org...

That debate took place over 4 years ago. Also the resolution left a lot of room for play, which benefited pro as much as it benefited con. The debater should have tried his best to prove God through some obscure philosophical stuff, to save the debate. He could have also argued that he doesn't need to prove God or numerous other options.

He should have also walked away from that with a knowledge of how to more carefully craft resolutions, and a better foundation for his beliefs. He also hopefully learned to improve his research skills.

If the guy has the proper attitude that matches what those more inclined to stick around have. I'm sure he'll walk away from that debate a better debater than when he went into it.

True, but I think his opponent (who is clearly more experienced) should not have changed the direction of the debate. He was just exploiting the newcomer's lack of experience for an easy win. The least he could have done was just presuppose the Bible is true and argue that speaking in tongues is not for today.

Sometimes that's the only way I can debate a topic I want. Nobody wants to debate marriage privatization, so I have to con Gay marriage to get a debate on it.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:19:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:11:44 AM, GOP wrote:
So, you know how you try to hold debates about the Bible, and then some random atheist accepts it?

Let's say you're arguing the resolution called "The Biblical God is not immoral" or something like that. Then some atheist accepts it and says, "You must first prove that God exists", and I am like ,"Dude, that's not even the point of this debate."

I mean, I realize that it is the instigator's job to clarify his/her preferences and all that, but still..

For that specific debate you were having, the existence of God is very much on topic. Since God is often used as the justification for the bible being infallible by believers, that is by being divine-inspired etc.

There are far more significant debate hijacks than this...