Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Ban

wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:23:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

A *bad* RFD from a viable user is actually hard to find. Some times 10 pages are needed, sometimes it only takes one sentence. The people that have received warnings about voting habits

Which the just of the RFD is something like

"Pro made better arguments"

Generally get their voting privs removed, but that on the min is a horrible RFD. The ones people think RFDS may be considered insufficient but viable.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

What, in your view, is a "proper RFD"?
Tsar of DDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:48:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:24:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

What, in your view, is a "proper RFD"?

(Page 1/1000)
This debate on whether dogs or cats are better animals has been conducted in an improper manner by Pro. His claim that dogs "are friendlier" has no provided evidence backing it and burden of proof is on him to prove that dogs are friendlier. Thus, Pro loses points for Conduct. However, I must admonish Con for using a format which violates the Lincoln-Douglas format, which I feel this debate should've been done in."
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:48:32 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:24:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

What, in your view, is a "proper RFD"?

(Page 1/1000)
This debate on whether dogs or cats are better animals has been conducted in an improper manner by Pro. His claim that dogs "are friendlier" has no provided evidence backing it and burden of proof is on him to prove that dogs are friendlier. Thus, Pro loses points for Conduct. However, I must admonish Con for using a format which violates the Lincoln-Douglas format, which I feel this debate should've been done in."

No, it should be like this: *qoutes a line from Con's argument* It speaks for itself.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

There are certain considerations that must be made when evaluating what constitutes a "proper" RFD. Generally, a proper RFD evaluates the relative strength of arguments against one another, and against burdens of proof that the resolution imposes on debaters. Different judges have different methods of doing this, but any RFD which does that is "proper" where the judge writing the RFD has (1) diligently read and understood the arguments, (2) does not put himself or herself in dialogue either explicitly or implicitly with the debaters.

Where judges put themselves in dialogue with debaters (perhaps by evaluating the relative strength or weakness of argumentative positions by measuring the debaters' arguments against the judges personal beliefs) they have offered improper RFD's. Length does not govern RFD's propriety; this is something that you seem to be unable to understand -perhaps because you don't understand what an RFD is. Since you suffer from that deficiency, I will encourage you to look to the RFD's of Whiteflame, Blarerunner, Thett, Bsh1, Mikal, Zaradi or I as models to follow.
Tsar of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:48:32 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:24:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

What, in your view, is a "proper RFD"?

(Page 1/1000)
This debate on whether dogs or cats are better animals has been conducted in an improper manner by Pro. His claim that dogs "are friendlier" has no provided evidence backing it and burden of proof is on him to prove that dogs are friendlier. Thus, Pro loses points for Conduct. However, I must admonish Con for using a format which violates the Lincoln-Douglas format, which I feel this debate should've been done in."

Now, see, that doesn't strike me as being a very good RFD for a couple of reasons.

First, because the contention Pro was trying to prove was that dogs are better pets than cats. One of the reasons he gave was that dogs are friendlier than cats. That was a premise in his argument. I don't think it make sense to fault him for not proving all his premises because it's impossible for him to do so. If he gave some reason for why he thinks dogs are more friendly than cats, one could just come right back demand that he prove the premises in that case as well. And this could go on indefinitely.

Second, failure to argue one's position adequately should be reflected in argument points, not conduct points.
"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
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:13:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:07:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

There are certain considerations that must be made when evaluating what constitutes a "proper" RFD. Generally, a proper RFD evaluates the relative strength of arguments against one another, and against burdens of proof that the resolution imposes on debaters. Different judges have different methods of doing this, but any RFD which does that is "proper" where the judge writing the RFD has (1) diligently read and understood the arguments, (2) does not put himself or herself in dialogue either explicitly or implicitly with the debaters.

Where judges put themselves in dialogue with debaters (perhaps by evaluating the relative strength or weakness of argumentative positions by measuring the debaters' arguments against the judges personal beliefs) they have offered improper RFD's. Length does not govern RFD's propriety; this is something that you seem to be unable to understand
No, I perfectly understand that.
-perhaps because you don't understand what an RFD is.
-- I never claimed that I don't understand what an RFD is.
Since you suffer from that deficiency, I will encourage you to look to the RFD's of Whiteflame, Blarerunner, Thett, Bsh1, Mikal, Zaradi as models to follow.

LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:13:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:11:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:48:32 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:24:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

What, in your view, is a "proper RFD"?

(Page 1/1000)
This debate on whether dogs or cats are better animals has been conducted in an improper manner by Pro. His claim that dogs "are friendlier" has no provided evidence backing it and burden of proof is on him to prove that dogs are friendlier. Thus, Pro loses points for Conduct. However, I must admonish Con for using a format which violates the Lincoln-Douglas format, which I feel this debate should've been done in."

Now, see, that doesn't strike me as being a very good RFD for a couple of reasons.

First, because the contention Pro was trying to prove was that dogs are better pets than cats. One of the reasons he gave was that dogs are friendlier than cats. That was a premise in his argument. I don't think it make sense to fault him for not proving all his premises because it's impossible for him to do so. If he gave some reason for why he thinks dogs are more friendly than cats, one could just come right back demand that he prove the premises in that case as well. And this could go on indefinitely.

Second, failure to argue one's position adequately should be reflected in argument points, not conduct points.

I was mocking the issue by creating an overly complex and long RFD for such a simple topic.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

just name the guy who did it rather then be vague about it
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

I see no problem with this, so long as it is only applied to the hypocrites in question.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:23:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:13:27 PM, wordy wrote:
At 10/1/2014 4:07:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

There are certain considerations that must be made when evaluating what constitutes a "proper" RFD. Generally, a proper RFD evaluates the relative strength of arguments against one another, and against burdens of proof that the resolution imposes on debaters. Different judges have different methods of doing this, but any RFD which does that is "proper" where the judge writing the RFD has (1) diligently read and understood the arguments, (2) does not put himself or herself in dialogue either explicitly or implicitly with the debaters.

Where judges put themselves in dialogue with debaters (perhaps by evaluating the relative strength or weakness of argumentative positions by measuring the debaters' arguments against the judges personal beliefs) they have offered improper RFD's. Length does not govern RFD's propriety; this is something that you seem to be unable to understand
No, I perfectly understand that.
-perhaps because you don't understand what an RFD is.
-- I never claimed that I don't understand what an RFD is.
Since you suffer from that deficiency,
I guess making things up is healthy for your imagination.
I will encourage you to look to the RFD's of Whiteflame, Blarerunner, Thett, Bsh1, Mikal, Zaradi as models to follow.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:18:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

just name the guy who did it rather then be vague about it

He's (not very subtly) calling out YYW.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:23:41 PM, wordy wrote:
At 10/1/2014 4:13:27 PM, wordy wrote:
At 10/1/2014 4:07:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

There are certain considerations that must be made when evaluating what constitutes a "proper" RFD. Generally, a proper RFD evaluates the relative strength of arguments against one another, and against burdens of proof that the resolution imposes on debaters. Different judges have different methods of doing this, but any RFD which does that is "proper" where the judge writing the RFD has (1) diligently read and understood the arguments, (2) does not put himself or herself in dialogue either explicitly or implicitly with the debaters.

Where judges put themselves in dialogue with debaters (perhaps by evaluating the relative strength or weakness of argumentative positions by measuring the debaters' arguments against the judges personal beliefs) they have offered improper RFD's. Length does not govern RFD's propriety; this is something that you seem to be unable to understand
No, I perfectly understand that.
-perhaps because you don't understand what an RFD is.
-- I never claimed that I don't understand what an RFD is.
Since you suffer from that deficiency,
I guess making things up is healthy for your imagination.
I will encourage you to look to the RFD's of Whiteflame, Blarerunner, Thett, Bsh1, Mikal, Zaradi as models to follow.

Your passive aggression is unmerited, and you've failed to meaningfully advance a productive discussion of any kind. Even still, you're pretty clearly a noob so... yeah. Not much more to be said.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:53:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:18:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

just name the guy who did it rather then be vague about it

This is Wordy's way of being passive aggressive.
Tsar of DDO
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 5:14:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:50:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 4:23:41 PM, wordy wrote:
At 10/1/2014 4:13:27 PM, wordy wrote:
At 10/1/2014 4:07:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:21:02 PM, wordy wrote:
Should there be a ban on those users who themselves sometimes do not give proper RFD , but complain about bad RFDs and attempt to create flamewar in a debate ?

There are certain considerations that must be made when evaluating what constitutes a "proper" RFD. Generally, a proper RFD evaluates the relative strength of arguments against one another, and against burdens of proof that the resolution imposes on debaters. Different judges have different methods of doing this, but any RFD which does that is "proper" where the judge writing the RFD has (1) diligently read and understood the arguments, (2) does not put himself or herself in dialogue either explicitly or implicitly with the debaters.

Where judges put themselves in dialogue with debaters (perhaps by evaluating the relative strength or weakness of argumentative positions by measuring the debaters' arguments against the judges personal beliefs) they have offered improper RFD's. Length does not govern RFD's propriety; this is something that you seem to be unable to understand
No, I perfectly understand that.
-perhaps because you don't understand what an RFD is.
-- I never claimed that I don't understand what an RFD is.
Since you suffer from that deficiency,
I guess making things up is healthy for your imagination.
I will encourage you to look to the RFD's of Whiteflame, Blarerunner, Thett, Bsh1, Mikal, Zaradi as models to follow.

Your passive aggression is unmerited,
I'm not being passive aggressive.
and you've failed to meaningfully advance a productive discussion of any kind. Even still, you're pretty clearly a noob
so... yeah. Not much more to be said.
Productive discussion? I asked a question. You answered it. I didn't say anything against it except for the part you claimed incorrect things about me. Since I'm a noob and you are user of HOF , you shouldn't have input irrelevent claim to the topic. You claimed that I don't RFD is. Which is not only incorrect, but also irrelevant to the topic. Because whether I know about what RFD is , has nothing to do with my question. I never asked what RFD is. You made false assumption about me. You are the one who is misleading the productive discussion.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 5:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's silly and counter productive to criticize votes from people who made an honest attempt to be fair and thorough. I can tell you though that a few people who voted on the debate in question specifically asked YYW to criticize their RFD in a group PM.