Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Resolution sniping

GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:43:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's suppose I want to argue that Jesus' resurrection meets the criteria of historicity. Now, when I want to debate this, I don't want my opponent to come and say, "In order to prove that Jesus' resurrection meets the criteria of historicity, my opponent must prove that God exists without any doubt."

What can I do to make sure this doesn't happen? Should I say, "Presupposing that God exists, the resurrection of Christ meets the criteria of historicity"?
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:50:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

Oh, so I was right about including the "presupposing that God exists" part.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:51:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:50:06 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

Oh, so I was right about including the "presupposing that God exists" part.

i would just add it to the rules or everything that could be snipes

For the purpose of this debate we are assuming

(x)(y) and (z) are true
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:52:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:51:29 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:50:06 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

Oh, so I was right about including the "presupposing that God exists" part.

i would just add it to the rules or everything that could be snipes

For the purpose of this debate we are assuming

(x)(y) and (z) are true

KK thanks
Ajab
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 8:23:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:52:33 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:51:29 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:50:06 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

Oh, so I was right about including the "presupposing that God exists" part.

i would just add it to the rules or everything that could be snipes

For the purpose of this debate we are assuming

(x)(y) and (z) are true

KK thanks

Make sure we get to do our debate first.
#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!
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 9:37:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

I think these rules are generally dumb and unfair.

Con should be free to attack the resolution however they want. You don't get To choose what arguments your opponent can use. A well defined resolution should Sufficiently limit the scope of the debate.

I can see some case for bracketing debate assumptions, but it needs to be done very carefully to construct a reasonable debate. I rarely see such careful consideration when such rules are imposed.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:57:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 9:37:12 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

I think these rules are generally dumb and unfair.

Con should be free to attack the resolution however they want. You don't get To choose what arguments your opponent can use. A well defined resolution should Sufficiently limit the scope of the debate.

I can see some case for bracketing debate assumptions, but it needs to be done very carefully to construct a reasonable debate. I rarely see such careful consideration when such rules are imposed.

He should be able to define the resolution so that it makes the debate about the topic he wants to debate. While I agree that you shouldn't control your opponent's arguments, but you should be able to at least control it to the degree that it is about what you want to debate.

If he wants to debate Jesus being resurrected or not, he should be able to. Anyone that is trying to twist that to about God and not Jesus is trying to essentially change the debate.

It is no different from defining words to make sure people don't expose semantic loop holes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:05:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 8:23:10 AM, Ajab wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:52:33 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:51:29 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:50:06 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

Oh, so I was right about including the "presupposing that God exists" part.

i would just add it to the rules or everything that could be snipes

For the purpose of this debate we are assuming

(x)(y) and (z) are true

KK thanks

Make sure we get to do our debate first.

Oh of course, Ajab.
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 8:23:10 AM, Ajab wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:52:33 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:51:29 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:50:06 AM, GOP wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

Oh, so I was right about including the "presupposing that God exists" part.

i would just add it to the rules or everything that could be snipes

For the purpose of this debate we are assuming

(x)(y) and (z) are true

KK thanks

Make sure we get to do our debate first.

The only reason why I made this post was just to make sure that I could avoid getting resolution sniped in the future.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 1:34:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:43:16 AM, GOP wrote:
Should I say, "Presupposing that God exists, the resurrection of Christ meets the criteria of historicity"?

That plus basic definitions would do it (definitions must always be in the first round to be binding). Your opponent can then make a doctoral thesis on how God does not exist, yet since the resolution presumes God does exist, everything they just said would be off topic and therefore meaningless to the debate.

As for questions of limiting how your opponent debates... I personally hate debates that stipulate "con must argue this exact way," but a well worded resolution and selection of definitions is vital to ensure the desired debate actually happens, even if your opponent finds an unexpected angle to attack the resolution from.

Oh due to a lot of bad votes I've noticed recently, I suggest a "BoP is shared" clause. I bloody hate people who just sit there and claims "BoP not met" instead of engaging with the debate, only to have biased voters reward that misbehavior.
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...
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 2:10:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:57:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/28/2014 9:37:12 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

I think these rules are generally dumb and unfair.

Con should be free to attack the resolution however they want. You don't get To choose what arguments your opponent can use. A well defined resolution should Sufficiently limit the scope of the debate.

I can see some case for bracketing debate assumptions, but it needs to be done very carefully to construct a reasonable debate. I rarely see such careful consideration when such rules are imposed.

He should be able to define the resolution so that it makes the debate about the topic he wants to debate. While I agree that you shouldn't control your opponent's arguments, but you should be able to at least control it to the degree that it is about what you want to debate.

If he wants to debate Jesus being resurrected or not, he should be able to. Anyone that is trying to twist that to about God and not Jesus is trying to essentially change the debate.

It is no different from defining words to make sure people don't expose semantic loop holes.

No amount of definitions will control how your opponent argues the case. Definitions only attempt to create a paradigm by which judges can decide a winner or loser. When it comes to things that actually restrict argument choice, I think it is more appropriate to do this in round where the appropriateness of an argument can actually be evaluated. Definitions do not place limits on what tactics can be used to disprove the Resolution, they clarify the meaning of the Resolution.

I suppose I am not totally opposed to laying out assumptions through which to limit the Resolution. For example, "assuming the new and old testament as theological canon, Resolution X" is a reasonable way to focus a debate on Christian theology. In practice I think it generally encourages bad Resolutions and lazy consideration of the proposition; I think in most cases it is unnecessary. Come to think of it, even the case I cite could probably worded as "X is the correct interpretation of Christian theology" or something.

For example, I am in a debate about whether morality is a physical force but stated in his opening round that he wants to avoid metaphysical speculation. Pro created a Resolution about the nature of morality and then purports to ban "metaphysical" arguments. This type of argument restriction is counterproductive to actually engaging the topic of debate.

I think a well defined Resolution should be enough to ground what is allowed in the debate. The point of the debate is to prove or disprove the Resolution, not to have a conversation about some limited aspect of the Resolution.

In the above case, I think arguing about the existence of God would probably lose the debate without any additional rules. If the Resolution concerns historicity of the Bible, making some abstract argument about the Problem of Evil will not be responsive to Pro's arguments.

I am not 100% committed to this position, but in general I think the Resolution should stand alone without argument restrictions to shape the direction of the debate.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 2:48:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 2:10:22 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:57:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/28/2014 9:37:12 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

I think these rules are generally dumb and unfair.

Con should be free to attack the resolution however they want. You don't get To choose what arguments your opponent can use. A well defined resolution should Sufficiently limit the scope of the debate.

I can see some case for bracketing debate assumptions, but it needs to be done very carefully to construct a reasonable debate. I rarely see such careful consideration when such rules are imposed.

He should be able to define the resolution so that it makes the debate about the topic he wants to debate. While I agree that you shouldn't control your opponent's arguments, but you should be able to at least control it to the degree that it is about what you want to debate.

If he wants to debate Jesus being resurrected or not, he should be able to. Anyone that is trying to twist that to about God and not Jesus is trying to essentially change the debate.

It is no different from defining words to make sure people don't expose semantic loop holes.

No amount of definitions will control how your opponent argues the case. Definitions only attempt to create a paradigm by which judges can decide a winner or loser. When it comes to things that actually restrict argument choice, I think it is more appropriate to do this in round where the appropriateness of an argument can actually be evaluated. Definitions do not place limits on what tactics can be used to disprove the Resolution, they clarify the meaning of the Resolution.

I suppose I am not totally opposed to laying out assumptions through which to limit the Resolution. For example, "assuming the new and old testament as theological canon, Resolution X" is a reasonable way to focus a debate on Christian theology. In practice I think it generally encourages bad Resolutions and lazy consideration of the proposition; I think in most cases it is unnecessary. Come to think of it, even the case I cite could probably worded as "X is the correct interpretation of Christian theology" or something.

For example, I am in a debate about whether morality is a physical force but stated in his opening round that he wants to avoid metaphysical speculation. Pro created a Resolution about the nature of morality and then purports to ban "metaphysical" arguments. This type of argument restriction is counterproductive to actually engaging the topic of debate.

I think a well defined Resolution should be enough to ground what is allowed in the debate. The point of the debate is to prove or disprove the Resolution, not to have a conversation about some limited aspect of the Resolution.

In the above case, I think arguing about the existence of God would probably lose the debate without any additional rules. If the Resolution concerns historicity of the Bible, making some abstract argument about the Problem of Evil will not be responsive to Pro's arguments.

I am not 100% committed to this position, but in general I think the Resolution should stand alone without argument restrictions to shape the direction of the debate.

If your only concern is "winning" then that makes sense, since those other arguments of the problem of evil will not be effective and you'll get an easy win. But if you're debating for the purpose of having that particular debate, then having the topic shifted or even attempted to be shifted is a loss in the purpose of the debate.

I would disagree that definitions are not restrictive. Let's say one wishes to debate about the merits of dams. They put the resolution "dams are an efficint means of electric generation."

And con argues "beaver dams can't generate any electricity so the result ion is negated." Clearly a semantic trolling, but proper definitions restrict that line of argument.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:01:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 2:48:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/28/2014 2:10:22 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:57:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/28/2014 9:37:12 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:45:08 AM, Mikal wrote:
rules

(a) For this debate we will assume God exists


Resolution - The resurrection has historical validity

I think these rules are generally dumb and unfair.

Con should be free to attack the resolution however they want. You don't get To choose what arguments your opponent can use. A well defined resolution should Sufficiently limit the scope of the debate.

I can see some case for bracketing debate assumptions, but it needs to be done very carefully to construct a reasonable debate. I rarely see such careful consideration when such rules are imposed.

He should be able to define the resolution so that it makes the debate about the topic he wants to debate. While I agree that you shouldn't control your opponent's arguments, but you should be able to at least control it to the degree that it is about what you want to debate.

If he wants to debate Jesus being resurrected or not, he should be able to. Anyone that is trying to twist that to about God and not Jesus is trying to essentially change the debate.

It is no different from defining words to make sure people don't expose semantic loop holes.

No amount of definitions will control how your opponent argues the case. Definitions only attempt to create a paradigm by which judges can decide a winner or loser. When it comes to things that actually restrict argument choice, I think it is more appropriate to do this in round where the appropriateness of an argument can actually be evaluated. Definitions do not place limits on what tactics can be used to disprove the Resolution, they clarify the meaning of the Resolution.

I suppose I am not totally opposed to laying out assumptions through which to limit the Resolution. For example, "assuming the new and old testament as theological canon, Resolution X" is a reasonable way to focus a debate on Christian theology. In practice I think it generally encourages bad Resolutions and lazy consideration of the proposition; I think in most cases it is unnecessary. Come to think of it, even the case I cite could probably worded as "X is the correct interpretation of Christian theology" or something.

For example, I am in a debate about whether morality is a physical force but stated in his opening round that he wants to avoid metaphysical speculation. Pro created a Resolution about the nature of morality and then purports to ban "metaphysical" arguments. This type of argument restriction is counterproductive to actually engaging the topic of debate.

I think a well defined Resolution should be enough to ground what is allowed in the debate. The point of the debate is to prove or disprove the Resolution, not to have a conversation about some limited aspect of the Resolution.

In the above case, I think arguing about the existence of God would probably lose the debate without any additional rules. If the Resolution concerns historicity of the Bible, making some abstract argument about the Problem of Evil will not be responsive to Pro's arguments.

I am not 100% committed to this position, but in general I think the Resolution should stand alone without argument restrictions to shape the direction of the debate.

If your only concern is "winning" then that makes sense, since those other arguments of the problem of evil will not be effective and you'll get an easy win. But if you're debating for the purpose of having that particular debate, then having the topic shifted or even attempted to be shifted is a loss in the purpose of the debate.


If you are engaging in a debate, then your primary concern is winning or at least providing a case you are proud of. If you just want to have a conversation about something, stick to the forums. Debate is a competitive activity, it has a winner and a loser.

You can never control whether your opponent will engage you on-topic, you can only incentivize topical arguments through win-conditions. Using the rule structure you defend only prevents a topic shift insofar as people are concerned with winning.

I would disagree that definitions are not restrictive. Let's say one wishes to debate about the merits of dams. They put the resolution "dams are an efficint means of electric generation."

And con argues "beaver dams can't generate any electricity so the result ion is negated." Clearly a semantic trolling, but proper definitions restrict that line of argument.

The argument is not restricted at all. The argument is not prima facie a violation of the rules, it doesn't get automatically disqualified as non-topical. The definition of "dam" doesn't bar that argument as illegitimate; if "dam" is defined as a hydroelectic plant or whatever, Con is allowed to make whatever argument she wants about beavers, they just won't win the debate. Defining "dam" establishes that arguments about beavers do not speak to the Resolution and so fail as a strategy of attacking the Rez.

The difference is restricting argument makes Pro's response "that argument isn't allowed" rather than "that is a bad argument."