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

== Voting Tips & Advice from Bluesteel ==

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 4:40:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Around this time last week, there was a discussion occurring which revolved around the quality of voting on this site. I agreed with the points raised by Bluesteel during that discussion, and decided to reach out to him privately to ask for some voting advice or pointers since I personally never had the experience of voting on debates before coming to DDO.

What I got in return was nothing short of a well-thought-out and thorough reply that covered 3 different aspects of voting:

1) Offense & Defense

2) Links & Impacts

3) Impact Calculus

I was so impressed with the quality of the reply and degree of knowledge that I gained from reading his reply that I asked for his permission to share this advice with the public. Today he granted me that permission :)

I share this with the hope that his advice will help someone else, just as it helped me!

--------------------------------------------------------

== Offense/Defense ==

Offense is an affirmative reason to vote for a particular side. If the topic were: Resolved: All schools should adopt merit pay, an "offensive" argument would be that merit pay would improve educational quality in our nation's schools.

Defense is an argument that merely mitigates the reasons that you would vote for a particular side; it is not an independent reason to vote for your own side. On the same topic as above, an argument that "the test score gains in schools that implemented merit pay are due to other factors" would be defensive. Even if the argument is 100% true, at most is proves that Pro was not entirely correct in Pro's assertion that merit pay improves test scores. But it's not a reason that merit pay is *bad.* For Con, "offensive" arguments are reasons merit pay is bad, e.g. that it would discourage people from becoming teachers.

== Links and impacts ==

A proper offensive argument has a "link" and an "impact." A "link" is the explanation of the argument itself and how it ties into the resolution. So for example, on merit pay, Pro's link is that studies show that schools that adopted merit pay improved their test scores by 10%.

The impact is why the "link" or argument constitutes a reason to vote Pro or Con. In the above example, the "impact" would be that implementing merit pay across the nation would improve test scores by 10%. Pro could add to this impact further by finding a study that said if we improved our test scores by 10%, it could add $1 trillion per year to our economy because would could have more math and science majors, who could take important tech jobs.

So the "impact" to Pro's argument that merit pay improves test scores is that we could add $1 trillion per year to the economy.

Con might claim that merit pay would discourage people from becoming teachers. The link is that people like job security, and merit pay systems abolish tenure. The impact is that if fewer people become teachers, we will have a teacher shortage. Con could expand on this impact by claiming that a teacher shortage would reduce student performance because it would increase class sizes.

== Impact Calculus ==

Let's say the topic is "Resolved: North Korea is a greater threat to the US than Iran."

Pro runs that North Korea could attack South Korea at any time, and such a war would draw the US into it. Stratfor estimates show that such a war would cost 400,000 lives (that's the impact).

Con runs that Iran can cut off the Straight of Hormuz, a major oil route. Iran is building the military capabilities to do so and has threatened to do so in the past (the link). If Iran did so, it would cost the US approximately $250 million in lost trade and higher oil prices (the impact).

At the end of the debate, the judge is supposed to weigh: (a) the probability and (b) the magnitude of all the impacts.

Probably ties into (1) how persuasively it was argued and (2) how good the rebuttals are. The opponent can show that the impact is highly improbable by using good rebuttal responses.

The judges are also supposed to weigh the magnitude. Assuming the probabilities were about even as to North Korea provoking a war with South Korea and Iran cutting off the Straight of Hormuz using their navy, then the judge weighs which is more important: 400,000 lost lives in a war on the Korean Peninsula or $250 million.

In this case, Pro would probably win because 400,000 lives outweighs $250 million.

That's impacts and impact calculus in a nutshell.

-------------------------------------------------------
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 5:16:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bluesteel's always been an exceptional voter, so I hope people read through this and take it to heart. Voting based on these standards makes things a lot more complicated, but it also takes much of our bias out of the equation and lays things bare based on a set of easily understandable criteria. Whether you have a lot of experience voting, or very little, it's useful to get this perspective on how to vote. I know I appreciate it.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 5:25:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 5:16:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Bluesteel's always been an exceptional voter, so I hope people read through this and take it to heart. Voting based on these standards makes things a lot more complicated, but it also takes much of our bias out of the equation and lays things bare based on a set of easily understandable criteria. Whether you have a lot of experience voting, or very little, it's useful to get this perspective on how to vote. I know I appreciate it.

Well said, Whiteflame!
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 4:30:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

It is slightly more complicated than I made it out to be. The resolution was US-specific, and we only have a few tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. If -- out of those 400,000 -- only 3,500 are American lives, the impact calculus becomes much more complicated, especially because the lost lives is a one time loss whereas the economic harms are what we call a systemic impact, meaning that it magnifies over time. It is a yearly loss. So $2.5 billion over 10 years is probably harder to weigh against 3,500 lives. Most people would say lives still outweigh in that scenario, but it's a much closer case. If you factor in probability, it is probably much more likely that Iran cuts off the Straight of Hormuz than that North Korea starts a full-out invasion of South Korea. A lot of the scenarios involve very few lives lost, actually, because North Korea runs out of food during their war efforts unless they immediately take Seoul, the South Korea capital, and use its food stores to resupply.

I used a simple example to illustrate the point, but in most debates with good rebuttals, impact calculus is really hard to do because you have analyses like the above.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 4:34:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

Also, since Pro brought up lives, Con would be smart to argue that if Iran cut off the Straight of Hormuz, we would send our Navy to stop the blockade, which would itself result in many lost lives. So you have lives + money versus lives.

But Pro would say that if North Korea lost, there is the huge problem of what to do with them after the war. Reunification is estimated to cost $6 trillion, and the US would probably have to pay part of that if we were involved in the war.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 6:11:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 4:34:22 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

Also, since Pro brought up lives, Con would be smart to argue that if Iran cut off the Straight of Hormuz, we would send our Navy to stop the blockade, which would itself result in many lost lives. So you have lives + money versus lives.

But Pro would say that if North Korea lost, there is the huge problem of what to do with them after the war. Reunification is estimated to cost $6 trillion, and the US would probably have to pay part of that if we were involved in the war.

Do you ever use Impact Calculus in debates?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 10:32:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

Population growth = economic growth

I take it your numbers are annual?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 12:01:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Translation:

Voting is subjective

Elo reflects popular opinion
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 12:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 4:30:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

It is slightly more complicated than I made it out to be. The resolution was US-specific, and we only have a few tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. If -- out of those 400,000 -- only 3,500 are American lives, the impact calculus becomes much more complicated, especially because the lost lives is a one time loss whereas the economic harms are what we call a systemic impact, meaning that it magnifies over time. It is a yearly loss. So $2.5 billion over 10 years is probably harder to weigh against 3,500 lives. Most people would say lives still outweigh in that scenario, but it's a much closer case. If you factor in probability, it is probably much more likely that Iran cuts off the Straight of Hormuz than that North Korea starts a full-out invasion of South Korea. A lot of the scenarios involve very few lives lost, actually, because North Korea runs out of food during their war efforts unless they immediately take Seoul, the South Korea capital, and use its food stores to resupply.

As a judge for this debate, would we need to think this far ahead or would we only weigh what the debaters gave us to work with? For instance, if the debater didn't bring up the fact that out of that 400,000 only 3,500 are American lives would we need to factor that in to our overall judgement?

You also said, "If we factor in probability..." and I'm curious when that would need to be done. Like, if we factored in probability while weighing these arguments, is it because one of the debaters brought up probability or because the arguments themselves call for a judgement that requires probability to be factored in?

I used a simple example to illustrate the point, but in most debates with good rebuttals, impact calculus is really hard to do because you have analyses like the above.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 12:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 10:32:58 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

Population growth = economic growth

I take it your numbers are annual?

Yup, it'd only take one year to balance if each of those 400,000 people earned and spent $625.00 within that year (put $625.00 back into the economy). It'd ultimately come down to whether each of those 400,000 earn/spend that $625.00 in one years time.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 1:35:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 12:52:20 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:32:58 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

Population growth = economic growth

I take it your numbers are annual?

Yup, it'd only take one year to balance if each of those 400,000 people earned and spent $625.00 within that year (put $625.00 back into the economy). It'd ultimately come down to whether each of those 400,000 earn/spend that $625.00 in one years time.

Good job.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 2:00:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 12:44:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:30:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

It is slightly more complicated than I made it out to be. The resolution was US-specific, and we only have a few tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. If -- out of those 400,000 -- only 3,500 are American lives, the impact calculus becomes much more complicated, especially because the lost lives is a one time loss whereas the economic harms are what we call a systemic impact, meaning that it magnifies over time. It is a yearly loss. So $2.5 billion over 10 years is probably harder to weigh against 3,500 lives. Most people would say lives still outweigh in that scenario, but it's a much closer case. If you factor in probability, it is probably much more likely that Iran cuts off the Straight of Hormuz than that North Korea starts a full-out invasion of South Korea. A lot of the scenarios involve very few lives lost, actually, because North Korea runs out of food during their war efforts unless they immediately take Seoul, the South Korea capital, and use its food stores to resupply.

As a judge for this debate, would we need to think this far ahead or would we only weigh what the debaters gave us to work with? For instance, if the debater didn't bring up the fact that out of that 400,000 only 3,500 are American lives would we need to factor that in to our overall judgement?

You also said, "If we factor in probability..." and I'm curious when that would need to be done. Like, if we factored in probability while weighing these arguments, is it because one of the debaters brought up probability or because the arguments themselves call for a judgement that requires probability to be factored in?

All of what I brought up are things the debaters could argue, not things the judge would raise independently.

I left out a key principle of judging which is that a judge should take the "path of least resistance" and intervene as little as possible in making a decision, which means endeavoring to reach a decision based solely on arguments that were made in the debate, and not doing "work" for any debater by improving their argument by putting it in your own words.


I used a simple example to illustrate the point, but in most debates with good rebuttals, impact calculus is really hard to do because you have analyses like the above.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 2:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 2:00:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Judging hypothetical:
Let's say the resolution is "Federal Income Tax Rates Should Be Raised on the Poor".
The crux of the otherwise winning side is based on the misconception of marginal rate of 10% (bottom bracket), and thus, the argument has no validity.
Due to the other side's confusion of the law, they roll with the argument that is false, but never state it is false.

Who do you vote for: The "liar" or the confused?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 2:32:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 2:00:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 12:44:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:30:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

It is slightly more complicated than I made it out to be. The resolution was US-specific, and we only have a few tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. If -- out of those 400,000 -- only 3,500 are American lives, the impact calculus becomes much more complicated, especially because the lost lives is a one time loss whereas the economic harms are what we call a systemic impact, meaning that it magnifies over time. It is a yearly loss. So $2.5 billion over 10 years is probably harder to weigh against 3,500 lives. Most people would say lives still outweigh in that scenario, but it's a much closer case. If you factor in probability, it is probably much more likely that Iran cuts off the Straight of Hormuz than that North Korea starts a full-out invasion of South Korea. A lot of the scenarios involve very few lives lost, actually, because North Korea runs out of food during their war efforts unless they immediately take Seoul, the South Korea capital, and use its food stores to resupply.

As a judge for this debate, would we need to think this far ahead or would we only weigh what the debaters gave us to work with? For instance, if the debater didn't bring up the fact that out of that 400,000 only 3,500 are American lives would we need to factor that in to our overall judgement?

You also said, "If we factor in probability..." and I'm curious when that would need to be done. Like, if we factored in probability while weighing these arguments, is it because one of the debaters brought up probability or because the arguments themselves call for a judgement that requires probability to be factored in?

All of what I brought up are things the debaters could argue, not things the judge would raise independently.

Okay, that's what I thought, just wanted to be 100% sure.

I left out a key principle of judging which is that a judge should take the "path of least resistance" and intervene as little as possible in making a decision, which means endeavoring to reach a decision based solely on arguments that were made in the debate, and not doing "work" for any debater by improving their argument by putting it in your own words.

Yes! I'm glad you brought that up because I've seen that alot throughout my time here on DDO. I fully agree with that principle and it's one I try to practice every time I vote.

I used a simple example to illustrate the point, but in most debates with good rebuttals, impact calculus is really hard to do because you have analyses like the above.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 3:21:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 2:00:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 12:44:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:30:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/12/2015 4:12:24 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/11/2015 11:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2015 4:48:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
400,000 lives may outweigh 250 million dollars for people who have morals.

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose if we were looking from an economic standpoint, the 400,000 lives is more valuable as well since 400,000 people are likely to work, generate production, and create wealth that they either save or spend.

That's a good point. I did the math actually and the 400,000 people would only need to earn/spend $625.00 each to balance the 250 million dollars. It would definitely pay off to keep them around.

It is slightly more complicated than I made it out to be. The resolution was US-specific, and we only have a few tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. If -- out of those 400,000 -- only 3,500 are American lives, the impact calculus becomes much more complicated, especially because the lost lives is a one time loss whereas the economic harms are what we call a systemic impact, meaning that it magnifies over time. It is a yearly loss. So $2.5 billion over 10 years is probably harder to weigh against 3,500 lives. Most people would say lives still outweigh in that scenario, but it's a much closer case. If you factor in probability, it is probably much more likely that Iran cuts off the Straight of Hormuz than that North Korea starts a full-out invasion of South Korea. A lot of the scenarios involve very few lives lost, actually, because North Korea runs out of food during their war efforts unless they immediately take Seoul, the South Korea capital, and use its food stores to resupply.

As a judge for this debate, would we need to think this far ahead or would we only weigh what the debaters gave us to work with? For instance, if the debater didn't bring up the fact that out of that 400,000 only 3,500 are American lives would we need to factor that in to our overall judgement?

You also said, "If we factor in probability..." and I'm curious when that would need to be done. Like, if we factored in probability while weighing these arguments, is it because one of the debaters brought up probability or because the arguments themselves call for a judgement that requires probability to be factored in?

All of what I brought up are things the debaters could argue, not things the judge would raise independently.

I left out a key principle of judging which is that a judge should take the "path of least resistance" and intervene as little as possible in making a decision, which means endeavoring to reach a decision based solely on arguments that were made in the debate, and not doing "work" for any debater by improving their argument by putting it in your own words.


I'd just like to tack onto this because I think bluesteel makes a very good point here. This swings both ways. A judge should be inclined to do as little work as possible for the debaters (i.e. don't give them arguments or analysis that they don't give themselves), and thus debaters should be inclined to make judges do as little work as possible. I've judged a great deal of RL debate, especially Parli, and when people ask me what my voting philosophy is, it always includes the phrase "don't make me think." And I mean it. All the thinking should be plain to see in the debate, and the only thing required of me and any other judge is to read it and understand it.

I used a simple example to illustrate the point, but in most debates with good rebuttals, impact calculus is really hard to do because you have analyses like the above.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 3:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 2:17:15 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/12/2015 2:00:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Judging hypothetical:
Let's say the resolution is "Federal Income Tax Rates Should Be Raised on the Poor".
The crux of the otherwise winning side is based on the misconception of marginal rate of 10% (bottom bracket), and thus, the argument has no validity.
Due to the other side's confusion of the law, they roll with the argument that is false, but never state it is false.

Who do you vote for: The "liar" or the confused?

They both sound confused; you never said either intentionally lied.

You're supposed to vote for the one that misconceived the margin rate of 10%. To vote for the other side because this was a misconception would be to credit the other side with an argument he never made, which is that there was a misconception about the law. Again, intervene as little as possible, even if that means accepting assertions that you know to be false.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 7:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is all good stuff. I think that this is advice that caters to someone who already has some general conception of what judging ought to be, though. A more rudimentary guide, I think, based on several RFD's I've seen lately, is necessary.

To start, reading the debate in its entirety for comprehension, like, to understand it, is essential. I can't count the number of RFD's I've seen that misrepresent content. It's egregious, and maddening to see as a debater.

Another tip, that I thought should be really obvious, but I suppose it's not, is to NOT vote based on your personal feelings for a topic. I've seen young and dumb kids as well as old and stubborn fools make this mistake.

Giving a side a loss because you don't agree with what they're saying is always, without question, and beyond any doubt an unacceptable thing to do. There is no merit to a vote cast based on sentiment for the topic. It's just that simple.

I'm going to make another post about RFD's later. Keep in mind, this really is not an issue for most established members. Most established members (like, more than 75 percent I would say) do not fall within the category of people who need to take what I'm saying to heart.

It's the newer ones that need a reality check, and especially the kids. Get off my lawn.
Tsar of DDO
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 8:39:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 7:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
This is all good stuff. I think that this is advice that caters to someone who already has some general conception of what judging ought to be, though. A more rudimentary guide, I think, based on several RFD's I've seen lately, is necessary.

To start, reading the debate in its entirety for comprehension, like, to understand it, is essential. I can't count the number of RFD's I've seen that misrepresent content. It's egregious, and maddening to see as a debater.

Another tip, that I thought should be really obvious, but I suppose it's not, is to NOT vote based on your personal feelings for a topic. I've seen young and dumb kids as well as old and stubborn fools make this mistake.

Giving a side a loss because you don't agree with what they're saying is always, without question, and beyond any doubt an unacceptable thing to do. There is no merit to a vote cast based on sentiment for the topic. It's just that simple.

I'm going to make another post about RFD's later. Keep in mind, this really is not an issue for most established members. Most established members (like, more than 75 percent I would say) do not fall within the category of people who need to take what I'm saying to heart.

It's the newer ones that need a reality check, and especially the kids. Get off my lawn.

I'm up for doing a more basic voting guide with you, YYW. We could use a lot of the basic examples we see on the site and go through the problems with them and how to improve.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 8:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 8:39:23 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/12/2015 7:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
This is all good stuff. I think that this is advice that caters to someone who already has some general conception of what judging ought to be, though. A more rudimentary guide, I think, based on several RFD's I've seen lately, is necessary.

To start, reading the debate in its entirety for comprehension, like, to understand it, is essential. I can't count the number of RFD's I've seen that misrepresent content. It's egregious, and maddening to see as a debater.

Another tip, that I thought should be really obvious, but I suppose it's not, is to NOT vote based on your personal feelings for a topic. I've seen young and dumb kids as well as old and stubborn fools make this mistake.

Giving a side a loss because you don't agree with what they're saying is always, without question, and beyond any doubt an unacceptable thing to do. There is no merit to a vote cast based on sentiment for the topic. It's just that simple.

I'm going to make another post about RFD's later. Keep in mind, this really is not an issue for most established members. Most established members (like, more than 75 percent I would say) do not fall within the category of people who need to take what I'm saying to heart.

It's the newer ones that need a reality check, and especially the kids. Get off my lawn.

I'm up for doing a more basic voting guide with you, YYW. We could use a lot of the basic examples we see on the site and go through the problems with them and how to improve.

Cool. I think that would be a really good thing to do, that could be useful for newer members... and it might even get stickied if we were lucky haha
Tsar of DDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 11:46:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 7:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
This is all good stuff. I think that this is advice that caters to someone who already has some general conception of what judging ought to be, though. A more rudimentary guide, I think, based on several RFD's I've seen lately, is necessary.

To start, reading the debate in its entirety for comprehension, like, to understand it, is essential. I can't count the number of RFD's I've seen that misrepresent content. It's egregious, and maddening to see as a debater.

Another tip, that I thought should be really obvious, but I suppose it's not, is to NOT vote based on your personal feelings for a topic. I've seen young and dumb kids as well as old and stubborn fools make this mistake.

Giving a side a loss because you don't agree with what they're saying is always, without question, and beyond any doubt an unacceptable thing to do. There is no merit to a vote cast based on sentiment for the topic. It's just that simple.

I'm going to make another post about RFD's later. Keep in mind, this really is not an issue for most established members. Most established members (like, more than 75 percent I would say) do not fall within the category of people who need to take what I'm saying to heart.

It's the newer ones that need a reality check, and especially the kids. Get off my lawn.

How do you reconcile all that with your vote here? : http://www.debate.org...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 6:33:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 11:46:03 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/12/2015 7:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
This is all good stuff. I think that this is advice that caters to someone who already has some general conception of what judging ought to be, though. A more rudimentary guide, I think, based on several RFD's I've seen lately, is necessary.

To start, reading the debate in its entirety for comprehension, like, to understand it, is essential. I can't count the number of RFD's I've seen that misrepresent content. It's egregious, and maddening to see as a debater.

Another tip, that I thought should be really obvious, but I suppose it's not, is to NOT vote based on your personal feelings for a topic. I've seen young and dumb kids as well as old and stubborn fools make this mistake.

Giving a side a loss because you don't agree with what they're saying is always, without question, and beyond any doubt an unacceptable thing to do. There is no merit to a vote cast based on sentiment for the topic. It's just that simple.

I'm going to make another post about RFD's later. Keep in mind, this really is not an issue for most established members. Most established members (like, more than 75 percent I would say) do not fall within the category of people who need to take what I'm saying to heart.

It's the newer ones that need a reality check, and especially the kids. Get off my lawn.

How do you reconcile all that with your vote here? : http://www.debate.org...

Easily.
Tsar of DDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 11:07:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 6:33:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/12/2015 11:46:03 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/12/2015 7:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
This is all good stuff. I think that this is advice that caters to someone who already has some general conception of what judging ought to be, though. A more rudimentary guide, I think, based on several RFD's I've seen lately, is necessary.

To start, reading the debate in its entirety for comprehension, like, to understand it, is essential. I can't count the number of RFD's I've seen that misrepresent content. It's egregious, and maddening to see as a debater.

Another tip, that I thought should be really obvious, but I suppose it's not, is to NOT vote based on your personal feelings for a topic. I've seen young and dumb kids as well as old and stubborn fools make this mistake.

Giving a side a loss because you don't agree with what they're saying is always, without question, and beyond any doubt an unacceptable thing to do. There is no merit to a vote cast based on sentiment for the topic. It's just that simple.

I'm going to make another post about RFD's later. Keep in mind, this really is not an issue for most established members. Most established members (like, more than 75 percent I would say) do not fall within the category of people who need to take what I'm saying to heart.

It's the newer ones that need a reality check, and especially the kids. Get off my lawn.

How do you reconcile all that with your vote here? : http://www.debate.org...

Easily.

I call.

Let's see you reconcile that vote with your own professed standards above.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

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