Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

About the burden of proof

ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

I like when debates don't have a fixed BoP in the first round because it allows debaters to discuss what do we need to prove in the debate. And that's what I tried in this debate and because my opponent didn't complain I thought he accepted it.

But In this debate, some of the voters claimed that I have a burden of something I don't believe I actually need, and the only reason of their votes is that burden.

So I want to make 3 questions:

1. How can we determine who has the BoP?
If I understand the BoP correctly, it's the one that makes a claim the one that has to prove it, and even more when It's the instigator.

I would also want to know when is it shared?, because one of the voters said in this case it was shared.

2. What does it mean to have the BoP?
I also want to know is to what extent we need to prove things and what should the person that does not have the BoP or that has a smaller burden than his opponent do.

In the case of the debate I mentioned, some voters claimed that even tho Pro had a burden, I, Con, needed to prove some other things like "that there is no negetive effect or impact in the current Elo system". Is that really part of my burden? I feel that that kind of negative is really difficult to prove and that it should not be considered part of my burden, just like trying to prove there is no god or that there is no intelligent life in other planets.

3. How is the situation in this debate?
I believe Pro had the full BoP to prove there are problems with the rating system and he was not able to. He showed problems, yes, but his burden was bigger. He needed to prove that those problems are caused by the rating system and that the only way to fix them would be with a change on the rating system, and that those problems are important enough for us to need those changes.

I only had to attack those things. Or am I missing something?

Btw, the debate is this one:
http://www.debate.org...
And yes, this is kind of a dirty advertisement lol.

Thanks.
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:59:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Default should be BOP on pro, debaters should make in round arguments addressing what bop ought to be, as judge I will evaluate where bop lay based on in round argument.

DDO needs debate theory for fairness and education.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:04:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the best way to avoid any ambiguities about who has the burden of proof in a debate is for the initiator to explicitly stipulate in the first round who has what burden of proof.

If one person has the burden of proof, then that person has to prove their point of view. The other person only has to try to refute their arguments. They don't have to prove the opposite thing.

If there is a shared burden of proof, then both people have to prove their point of view and refute each other's arguments. So Pro has to prove the resolution and Con has to prove the negation of the resolution.

If there is no stipulation about the burden of proof, and if the initiator is Pro, then I think the default assumption is that Pro has the burden of proving the resolution, and Con only has to refute their arguments. There have been times when I've accepted a debate and assumed a shared burden of proof either just because I wanted to or because something the other person said made me think that was their intention even though they didn't explicitly say so.

If the initiator of the debate makes themselves Con, then I think it's ambiguous who has the burden of proof, and the voters can make whatever assumptions or inferences they want, and Con has no excuse for complaining.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:59:22 PM, Raisor wrote:
Default should be BOP on pro, debaters should make in round arguments addressing what bop ought to be, as judge I will evaluate where bop lay based on in round argument.

DDO needs debate theory for fairness and education.

Can the BoP depend on the claim? In my debate, some voters were arguing that because the system could have problems I needed to prove that there were no possible way to fix them with another system or things like that.
So where is the limit? I mean, when does a claim means the BoP for one or for both?
In the case of "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow", is it shared or only pro?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, BoP is on the instigator unless otherwise specified.

In some debates, it's less relevant. But in general, that's the rule of thumb. Any other system in the context of this site seems, as my own opinion, to lend itself to abuse--and abuse that isn't immediately apparent, because nowhere is it explicit upon whom the BoP lies. I saw a double-negative resolution today--the only reason to do that, it seems, is to attempt to play non-obvious BoP games. And BoP should be clear (even though obviously there's differing opinions, so true clarity is probably a pipe dream).

Thus, to repeat myself, the default, in my opinion, should be on the one who instigated the debate. If they want it otherwise, they can feel free to explicitly specify it, so that it's very clear.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
BoP should be decided in R1, not throughout the debate. Leaving it up in the air to be decided later allows for voters to decide for themselves who is burdened with what, and sometimes it bites you in the butt. This time, you got bitten.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:09:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:

1. How can we determine who has the BoP?
If I understand the BoP correctly, it's the one that makes a claim the one that has to prove it, and even more when It's the instigator.

I would also want to know when is it shared?, because one of the voters said in this case it was shared.

I have no idea where they'd get the idea that it's shared in a debate like the one you're talking about. Probably because it's essentially a policy debate, and in policy debate even if the BoP is on one party, the threshold is lower, at which point it becomes for all intents and purposes shared.

2. What does it mean to have the BoP?

Shared BoP can also be thought of as a debate with 2 resolutions, which BOTH need to support. Thus, in the event of neither side establishing their resolution, the debate is nulled. With a one-sided BoP, the one with the BoP MUST establish their resolution, and if they fail the win defaults to the opposition.

I also want to know is to what extent we need to prove things and what should the person that does not have the BoP or that has a smaller burden than his opponent do.

The extent of the proof is a separate question from BoP.

In general, you have the BoP of any claim you make--you must establish it as true, or it's assumed to be not-true (not necessarily false).

What the standard of that evidence is is another matter entirely.

In the case of the debate I mentioned, some voters claimed that even tho Pro had a burden, I, Con, needed to prove some other things like "that there is no negetive effect or impact in the current Elo system". Is that really part of my burden?

No, but it's a term from policy debate. I happen to disagree with those voters, but I understand where they're coming from.

I feel that that kind of negative is really difficult to prove and that it should not be considered part of my burden, just like trying to prove there is no god or that there is no intelligent life in other planets.

It's a little different here. You're not on the side of non-existence--you're on the side of a competing position. EITHER new system, OR old system. There's no real "negative" position there.

3. How is the situation in this debate?
I believe Pro had the full BoP to prove there are problems with the rating system and he was not able to. He showed problems, yes, but his burden was bigger.

Umm, this is contradictory, you understand that, right?

He needed to prove that those problems are caused by the rating system and that the only way to fix them would be with a change on the rating system, and that those problems are important enough for us to need those changes.

I would argue part of showing that the only way to fix them is with a specific system, or at least that they'd be fixed in other systems, if it's not as simple as a single other system.

I only had to attack those things. Or am I missing something?

I would agree that you needed to show that his impacts were non-unique to the current system, and rather were likely to exist in all the systems.

His job was to find faults with the current system that could be solved in another system--you would either need to find new, bigger problems in the newer system, or show how the problems wouldn't be solved in the newer system, or show that the problems weren't worth fixing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden. This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism. There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.

It is my view, and the view of all those who understand how opinions work, that no opinion is inherently better or worse than another. I may disagree with them, but for me to, as a judge, yield some kind of deference to one debater -my doing so comes imminently at the expense of the other's fair treatment. While this is acceptable when we're talking about objective facts (we want all of the burden on those who purport to talk about reality, or, all and only which is objectively the case), it is not acceptable when talking about opinions or feelings about reality.

To illustrate the point, suppose that Raisor runs over Mikal with an automobile. Perhaps Raisor had a good reason to run over Mikal with an automobile, like the fact that in running over Mikal, Raisor prevented Mikal from the successful commission of a bank robbery. But, perhaps there were less potentially lethal ways for Raisor to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery or perhaps it wasn't Raisor's place to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery by way of running him over with an automobile.

It is a fact, in this scenario, that Raisor has run Mikal over with a car. We can causally link Mikal's being run over with a car to actions taken by Raisor. The burden of proof, for the person making the claim that Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, is solely on them, because they are making an objective claim about something that happened in the world.

How we feel about Raisor's running Mikal over with a car is a bit different. If Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, there are all kinds of different (and equally valid) ways to feel about that. Maybe Raisor was justified, or maybe not. The claim that "Raisor was justified in his running Mikal over with an automobile to prevent his successful commission of a bank robbery" is subjective, because it's about whether Raisor was right or wrong to take some kind of action. In that case, the burdens are equal and whoever argues more persuasively wins.
Tsar of DDO
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is how I decide.

In a policy debate, BoP falls on whomever is arguing against the status quo. In all other debates, it falls on the house looking to affirm the resolution.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, but it's a term from policy debate. I happen to disagree with those voters, but I understand where they're coming from.

I remember a post in this forum about something similar. About the BoP and the status quo. It was something about it being relevant only in legal debates. So this is something similar. The BoP depend on the "category" of the debate too, right?

It's a little different here. You're not on the side of non-existence--you're on the side of a competing position. EITHER new system, OR old system. There's no real "negative" position there.

Fair enough. But the same voters claimed that Pro didn't have to provide a new system, but only show problems. So the new system vs old system is not fair at all.

3. How is the situation in this debate?
I believe Pro had the full BoP to prove there are problems with the rating system and he was not able to. He showed problems, yes, but his burden was bigger.

Umm, this is contradictory, you understand that, right?

Not really. The problems Pro showed in the debate exist, but they are not problems with the rating system. It seems like the rating system is causing it because it's rating what we are talking about but other rating system would have the same problems.
Noob sniping for example, that's not caused by the rating system, but noob sniping can cause problems in accuracy. Noob sniping is not part of the rating system, tho. It would be posssible to do with other rating systems.

His job was to find faults with the current system that could be solved in another system--you would either need to find new, bigger problems in the newer system, or show how the problems wouldn't be solved in the newer system, or show that the problems weren't worth fixing.

How can he prove that the problems he provide are caused by the rating system?
I mean, the "should" in the resolution would make this necessary, right?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:33:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden.

I disagree.

Let's take a series of complaints about a thing. Complaints X, Y, and Z. They apply to the system under consideration. They make the resolution "System A should be changed", and give X, Y, and Z as their justification.

But these things also apply to all alternatives.

In this case, merely pointing out complaints X, Y, and Z is insufficient if the opposition can show that they are inherent to all systems.

In such a case who should win? The only argument in support of the change is X, Y, and Z, which are inherent to all systems. So, the person arguing that the system should be changed has given no reason to change it--and they initiated the resolution, making the claim that a change should happen. They did this based on nothing whatsoever, given that X, Y, and Z are inherent to all systems.

In such a case, I'd award the win to the opposition.

This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

I'm not sure I agree here, either.

The Flash is better than Spiderman is an opinion. It's the CORRECT opinion (just sayin'), but it's still an opinion.

If I create a resolution that says The Flash is better than Spiderman, I have raised a specific thing. We should assume that they're equal unless given some reason to think otherwise. Thus, the burden is on the one claiming that the Flash is better. Further, that burden is one-sided, unless otherwise specified. My opponent would have to merely show that my arguments for superiority were invalid. They could also show that Spiderman is better, but that's unnecessary.

Both tasks are, of course, impossible barring an error on my part. But still, it's a question of what happens in the default--if no real "case" is made.

If no case is made, we should assume the neutral position--equality, in the case of "X is better than Y".

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism.

I don't think it's that the status quo is self-justifying at all. But remember that if the argument is "X SHOULD change to Y", they aren't saying "Y is just as good as X", they're saying that "Y is better". If you think that, normatively, we should abandon X in favor of Y, you have to give us a reason to do so--otherwise, we have no reason to. We could anyway, of course--the choice is arbitrary. But you set yourself up to argue that it WASN'T arbitrary, but that a specific course of action or opinion should be taken.

There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.

It is my view, and the view of all those who understand how opinions work, that no opinion is inherently better or worse than another.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

I may disagree with them, but for me to, as a judge, yield some kind of deference to one debater -my doing so comes imminently at the expense of the other's fair treatment.

I also disagree with this, but for different reasons. (My reasons for disagreeing are ABOVE the last line where I disagreed).

While this is acceptable when we're talking about objective facts (we want all of the burden on those who purport to talk about reality, or, all and only which is objectively the case), it is not acceptable when talking about opinions or feelings about reality.

I think that depends, though, on what the claim is.

To illustrate the point, suppose that Raisor runs over Mikal with an automobile. Perhaps Raisor had a good reason to run over Mikal with an automobile, like the fact that in running over Mikal, Raisor prevented Mikal from the successful commission of a bank robbery. But, perhaps there were less potentially lethal ways for Raisor to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery or perhaps it wasn't Raisor's place to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery by way of running him over with an automobile.

It is a fact, in this scenario, that Raisor has run Mikal over with a car. We can causally link Mikal's being run over with a car to actions taken by Raisor. The burden of proof, for the person making the claim that Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, is solely on them, because they are making an objective claim about something that happened in the world.

How we feel about Raisor's running Mikal over with a car is a bit different. If Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, there are all kinds of different (and equally valid) ways to feel about that. Maybe Raisor was justified, or maybe not. The claim that "Raisor was justified in his running Mikal over with an automobile to prevent his successful commission of a bank robbery" is subjective, because it's about whether Raisor was right or wrong to take some kind of action. In that case, the burdens are equal and whoever argues more persuasively wins.

That's an awful deep rabbithole.

But if we take as a given that R ran over M, and someone starts the resolution as "It was wrong for R to run over M", they have the burden to show that it was wrong. If they fail to do so (let's say their arguments are just garbage and each one is rebutted), then they have failed to show that it was wrong for R to run over M, and the resolution fails. I would agree that the standard of evidence is lower in that case, for them to make their case--because we're going to have competing priorities, and each side's going to have to justify that. But fundamentally, if I start the resolution "It's wrong for R to run over M", and my only argument is "It just is", my opponent could say "No, it isn't", and they could, and should, win that debate, IMHO.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:37:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:30:38 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
No, but it's a term from policy debate. I happen to disagree with those voters, but I understand where they're coming from.

I remember a post in this forum about something similar. About the BoP and the status quo. It was something about it being relevant only in legal debates. So this is something similar. The BoP depend on the "category" of the debate too, right?

In some judge's opinion. I am of the opinion that the format of the site overrules and has its own default, unless otherwise specified; if you specify a different format in the R1 setup, well, that's a horse of a different color.

It's a little different here. You're not on the side of non-existence--you're on the side of a competing position. EITHER new system, OR old system. There's no real "negative" position there.

Fair enough. But the same voters claimed that Pro didn't have to provide a new system, but only show problems. So the new system vs old system is not fair at all.

I disagree with those voters, because JUST showing problems is insufficient to my mind, they have to show those problems to be unique, or at least SAY they're unique, at which point you'd have to argue otherwise.

3. How is the situation in this debate?
I believe Pro had the full BoP to prove there are problems with the rating system and he was not able to. He showed problems, yes, but his burden was bigger.

Umm, this is contradictory, you understand that, right?

Not really. The problems Pro showed in the debate exist, but they are not problems with the rating system. It seems like the rating system is causing it because it's rating what we are talking about but other rating system would have the same problems.
Noob sniping for example, that's not caused by the rating system, but noob sniping can cause problems in accuracy. Noob sniping is not part of the rating system, tho. It would be posssible to do with other rating systems.

No, I understand that, I'm just saying that the statement itself was contradictory.

You expanded on it after that, but it was still contradictory.

His job was to find faults with the current system that could be solved in another system--you would either need to find new, bigger problems in the newer system, or show how the problems wouldn't be solved in the newer system, or show that the problems weren't worth fixing.

How can he prove that the problems he provide are caused by the rating system?
I mean, the "should" in the resolution would make this necessary, right?

I would agree.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:39:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Blade

There is no way to show that a normative argument is invalid other than to show that it is based on flawed premises or that it it is constructed fallaciously. The object of winning a normative resolution is 'to be more persuasive' not 'to demonstrate invalidity' although, functionally, I think there is going to be very little difference in how we both evaluate normative arguments in that capacity.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:47:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:39:22 PM, YYW wrote:
@Blade

There is no way to show that a normative argument is invalid other than to show that it is based on flawed premises or that it it is constructed fallaciously. The object of winning a normative resolution is 'to be more persuasive' not 'to demonstrate invalidity' although, functionally, I think there is going to be very little difference in how we both evaluate normative arguments in that capacity.

I think we largely agree--the flawed premises or fallacious construction is exactly (I think) the objection I was making to your statements.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:51:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden. This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism. There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.

It is my view, and the view of all those who understand how opinions work, that no opinion is inherently better or worse than another. I may disagree with them, but for me to, as a judge, yield some kind of deference to one debater -my doing so comes imminently at the expense of the other's fair treatment. While this is acceptable when we're talking about objective facts (we want all of the burden on those who purport to talk about reality, or, all and only which is objectively the case), it is not acceptable when talking about opinions or feelings about reality.

To illustrate the point, suppose that Raisor runs over Mikal with an automobile. Perhaps Raisor had a good reason to run over Mikal with an automobile, like the fact that in running over Mikal, Raisor prevented Mikal from the successful commission of a bank robbery. But, perhaps there were less potentially lethal ways for Raisor to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery or perhaps it wasn't Raisor's place to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery by way of running him over with an automobile.

It is a fact, in this scenario, that Raisor has run Mikal over with a car. We can causally link Mikal's being run over with a car to actions taken by Raisor. The burden of proof, for the person making the claim that Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, is solely on them, because they are making an objective claim about something that happened in the world.

How we feel about Raisor's running Mikal over with a car is a bit different. If Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, there are all kinds of different (and equally valid) ways to feel about that. Maybe Raisor was justified, or maybe not. The claim that "Raisor was justified in his running Mikal over with an automobile to prevent his successful commission of a bank robbery" is subjective, because it's about whether Raisor was right or wrong to take some kind of action. In that case, the burdens are equal and whoever argues more persuasively wins.

But it's not a matter of fact vs opinions. if I say "The earth is flat", in what category would you put it? fact or opinion? If I say "The earth is flat" my intention would be to claim it as a fact. The same happens with "The DDO Elo system should be changed".

Technically, in debates, we would be talking about controversial topics and almost every topic has opinions. So why would this one be different? When does the BoP is for one person only? In your example, you call fact something we know, which is fine, but if everyone would know that, we would not be debating that.

I don't see how it's possible that you don't get full BoP for a claim just because it's an opinion.

And btw, even if it was shared, how did Pro prove his part of the BoP? He mentioned some problems, but those were not caused by the rating system. I think he didn't fulfill his part even if it's shared.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:54:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:51:25 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden. This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism. There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.

It is my view, and the view of all those who understand how opinions work, that no opinion is inherently better or worse than another. I may disagree with them, but for me to, as a judge, yield some kind of deference to one debater -my doing so comes imminently at the expense of the other's fair treatment. While this is acceptable when we're talking about objective facts (we want all of the burden on those who purport to talk about reality, or, all and only which is objectively the case), it is not acceptable when talking about opinions or feelings about reality.

To illustrate the point, suppose that Raisor runs over Mikal with an automobile. Perhaps Raisor had a good reason to run over Mikal with an automobile, like the fact that in running over Mikal, Raisor prevented Mikal from the successful commission of a bank robbery. But, perhaps there were less potentially lethal ways for Raisor to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery or perhaps it wasn't Raisor's place to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery by way of running him over with an automobile.

It is a fact, in this scenario, that Raisor has run Mikal over with a car. We can causally link Mikal's being run over with a car to actions taken by Raisor. The burden of proof, for the person making the claim that Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, is solely on them, because they are making an objective claim about something that happened in the world.

How we feel about Raisor's running Mikal over with a car is a bit different. If Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, there are all kinds of different (and equally valid) ways to feel about that. Maybe Raisor was justified, or maybe not. The claim that "Raisor was justified in his running Mikal over with an automobile to prevent his successful commission of a bank robbery" is subjective, because it's about whether Raisor was right or wrong to take some kind of action. In that case, the burdens are equal and whoever argues more persuasively wins.

But it's not a matter of fact vs opinions.

I don't think you understood what I was saying...

if I say "The earth is flat", in what category would you put it?

That is a question of fact. ==> BOP only on he who makes the claim.

"The DDO Elo system should be changed".

I don't see how it's possible that you don't get full BoP for a claim just because it's an opinion.

What don't you understand about the differences between facts and opinions?

And btw, even if it was shared, how did Pro prove his part of the BoP? He mentioned some problems, but those were not caused by the rating system. I think he didn't fulfill his part even if it's shared.

You can't prove a normative claim, or disprove it. You can only argue for or against it more or less persuasively.
Tsar of DDO
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:59:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:54:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:51:25 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden. This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism. There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.

It is my view, and the view of all those who understand how opinions work, that no opinion is inherently better or worse than another. I may disagree with them, but for me to, as a judge, yield some kind of deference to one debater -my doing so comes imminently at the expense of the other's fair treatment. While this is acceptable when we're talking about objective facts (we want all of the burden on those who purport to talk about reality, or, all and only which is objectively the case), it is not acceptable when talking about opinions or feelings about reality.

To illustrate the point, suppose that Raisor runs over Mikal with an automobile. Perhaps Raisor had a good reason to run over Mikal with an automobile, like the fact that in running over Mikal, Raisor prevented Mikal from the successful commission of a bank robbery. But, perhaps there were less potentially lethal ways for Raisor to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery or perhaps it wasn't Raisor's place to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery by way of running him over with an automobile.

It is a fact, in this scenario, that Raisor has run Mikal over with a car. We can causally link Mikal's being run over with a car to actions taken by Raisor. The burden of proof, for the person making the claim that Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, is solely on them, because they are making an objective claim about something that happened in the world.

How we feel about Raisor's running Mikal over with a car is a bit different. If Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, there are all kinds of different (and equally valid) ways to feel about that. Maybe Raisor was justified, or maybe not. The claim that "Raisor was justified in his running Mikal over with an automobile to prevent his successful commission of a bank robbery" is subjective, because it's about whether Raisor was right or wrong to take some kind of action. In that case, the burdens are equal and whoever argues more persuasively wins.

But it's not a matter of fact vs opinions.

I don't think you understood what I was saying...

if I say "The earth is flat", in what category would you put it?

That is a question of fact. ==> BOP only on he who makes the claim.

"The DDO Elo system should be changed".


I don't see how it's possible that you don't get full BoP for a claim just because it's an opinion.

What don't you understand about the differences between facts and opinions?

And btw, even if it was shared, how did Pro prove his part of the BoP? He mentioned some problems, but those were not caused by the rating system. I think he didn't fulfill his part even if it's shared.

You can't prove a normative claim, or disprove it. You can only argue for or against it more or less persuasively.

But I addressed this issue in the debate. The solution I made was not to compare "plans". It was to show that the problems he presented were not caused by the rating system. In other words, all RATING systems would have the same problems.
In other words we should not change the rating system for the reasons he mentioned.
That's the only thing I can do. There is no way I can prove that the system should not be changed for an infinite amount of reasons.

If this is what you mean when you say "shared BoP", that I have to prove that his reasons are not good, then I think I did.

For example, if you add a matchmaking system, you would have more accurate rating, but the system of the rating would be the same. You would not need to change the code of the rating system.

This is the only reason he tried to rebut the solution and present one on his own.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:06:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:59:08 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:54:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:51:25 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden. This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism. There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.

It is my view, and the view of all those who understand how opinions work, that no opinion is inherently better or worse than another. I may disagree with them, but for me to, as a judge, yield some kind of deference to one debater -my doing so comes imminently at the expense of the other's fair treatment. While this is acceptable when we're talking about objective facts (we want all of the burden on those who purport to talk about reality, or, all and only which is objectively the case), it is not acceptable when talking about opinions or feelings about reality.

To illustrate the point, suppose that Raisor runs over Mikal with an automobile. Perhaps Raisor had a good reason to run over Mikal with an automobile, like the fact that in running over Mikal, Raisor prevented Mikal from the successful commission of a bank robbery. But, perhaps there were less potentially lethal ways for Raisor to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery or perhaps it wasn't Raisor's place to prevent Mikal from the commission of a bank robbery by way of running him over with an automobile.

It is a fact, in this scenario, that Raisor has run Mikal over with a car. We can causally link Mikal's being run over with a car to actions taken by Raisor. The burden of proof, for the person making the claim that Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, is solely on them, because they are making an objective claim about something that happened in the world.

How we feel about Raisor's running Mikal over with a car is a bit different. If Raisor ran Mikal over with a car, there are all kinds of different (and equally valid) ways to feel about that. Maybe Raisor was justified, or maybe not. The claim that "Raisor was justified in his running Mikal over with an automobile to prevent his successful commission of a bank robbery" is subjective, because it's about whether Raisor was right or wrong to take some kind of action. In that case, the burdens are equal and whoever argues more persuasively wins.

But it's not a matter of fact vs opinions.

I don't think you understood what I was saying...

if I say "The earth is flat", in what category would you put it?

That is a question of fact. ==> BOP only on he who makes the claim.

"The DDO Elo system should be changed".


I don't see how it's possible that you don't get full BoP for a claim just because it's an opinion.

What don't you understand about the differences between facts and opinions?

And btw, even if it was shared, how did Pro prove his part of the BoP? He mentioned some problems, but those were not caused by the rating system. I think he didn't fulfill his part even if it's shared.

You can't prove a normative claim, or disprove it. You can only argue for or against it more or less persuasively.

But I addressed this issue in the debate. The solution I made was not to compare "plans". It was to show that the problems he presented were not caused by the rating system.

I know you tried to do that...

In other words, all RATING systems would have the same problems.

The claims "problem X" is not caused by system Y but all systems of the kind which Y belonds to cause "problem X" are contradictory, because if all systems of the kind to which Y belong result in X, then no individual Y can not result in X.

What you meant to say is that the problems your opponent attributes to X are not unique to X, meaning that the solution he's proposing isn't a solution to the problems he's citing.

But, that argument only holds if that is the case for all of the problems which he cited, which was not the case and which you neither showed nor persuasively argued.
Tsar of DDO
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:12:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But I addressed this issue in the debate. The solution I made was not to compare "plans". It was to show that the problems he presented were not caused by the rating system.

I know you tried to do that...

I mentioning this just because of your RFD.

In other words, all RATING systems would have the same problems.

The claims "problem X" is not caused by system Y but all systems of the kind which Y belonds to cause "problem X" are contradictory, because if all systems of the kind to which Y belong result in X, then no individual Y can not result in X.

What you meant to say is that the problems your opponent attributes to X are not unique to X, meaning that the solution he's proposing isn't a solution to the problems he's citing.

Yes I meant that independently of the rating system, the problems of the site would persist. Not that they would be caused by all the systems.

But, that argument only holds if that is the case for all of the problems which he cited, which was not the case and which you neither showed nor persuasively argued.

It was for all the problems he cited. The solution I proposed shows that.
And even if I did not do it, Pro should be the one proving that things like "noob sniping" are caused by the rating system, which is not.
He only used 2 arguments, accuracy and noob sniping.
Both were addressed. I really don't get it. How are those caused by the rating system, or how am I suppose to prove the supposed burden you say I have?

I tried my best to do it with the solutions that solve those problems without changing the rating system.

And then the arguments like the cost are also relevant.
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 7:19:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
well I did say changing the instigator advantage/contender disadvantage would balance it out and, while boosting under-rated debaters, stop the noob-snipers at the same time. Read carefully, Arc, I put it there. Believe me.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 7:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
but I do agree, people seem to be kind of confused because of how hard you argued on your position, it gave the illusion that BoP was shared while I never contested your statement that the BoP was on me (I didn't mind that, I had good arguments for why the elo system should be changed)
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 9:37:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:12:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:19:13 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
I had a debate with the resolution "The DDO Elo system should be changed somehow" where I'm Con.

The resolution is about opinions, which means that in order to be fair, as a judge one must consider both parties debating to have an equal burden. This is not a position that is universally held, and those who believe that merely affirming a resolution indicates that the person affirming has the burden disparage the enterprise of debating by unduly showing deference to one opinion over the other when they do not judge the debate as if the burden were equal when the debate entails the question of an opinion.

That perspective stems from the theoretical view that the status quo is not self justifying -which is in and of itself in direct contradiction with such noted rhetoricians and political philosophers as Edmund Burke, and his compatriots in modern conservatism. There are others, like Raisor, who believe that "he who makes the claim always has the BOP." This is a conventional understanding of the burden of proof, but it ignores the stark differences between kinds of claims. Claims exist in two varieties, for our purposes: those which posit a belief of what is objectively the case, and the stuff of opinion. In technical terms, we refer to these as positive and normative, respectively.


This isn't my view at all. I pretty consistently advocate for BoP to be a function of in round argument. If that is absent I will generally default to Pro BoP tempered by consideration of my own understanding of what interpretation of BoP will yield a good debate (fair ground etc)
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:23:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 7:19:56 AM, 9spaceking wrote:
well I did say changing the instigator advantage/contender disadvantage would balance it out and, while boosting under-rated debaters, stop the noob-snipers at the same time. Read carefully, Arc, I put it there. Believe me.

I know you did. That would not change the problems lol. Under rated debaters can also instigate debates, so it would be the same, and noob sniper would still exist.
And I also answered to that.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 4:07:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not to sound like a broken record... But BoP is the most over used term on this website. A case like this both sides have proven benefit to their case, and cost to the other.

Not to say all votes on this one... but voting by BoP is sometimes a cheap way not to actually bother considering the weight of argument points, even going so far as people deciding to vote just for their pre-determined bias as if they had not read the argument.

As a reminder (not that the people who need it are likely to read this) DDO is not a live debate in whatever debate league. The default argument vote is actually tied.
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...
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 5:42:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 4:07:13 PM, Ragnar wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record... But BoP is the most over used term on this website. A case like this both sides have proven benefit to their case, and cost to the other.

Perhaps it is the most overused term because it is the conceptual foundation judging....

Not to say all votes on this one... but voting by BoP is sometimes a cheap way not to actually bother considering the weight of argument points, even going so far as people deciding to vote just for their pre-determined bias as if they had not read the argument.

Tell me, Ragnr, in the most general terms, what you think a burden of proof is.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 5:50:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously.
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...