Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TRW: Week 2

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 10:55:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Intro

The debate chosen for this week is one conducted between UchihaMadara (aka Romanii) and Lannan for the Tiered Tournament. The debate can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

The topic was: The Military Draft Should Be Abolished. Uchiha was Pro. Lannon was Con. It was very close. Lannan won by *one point*, 21-20.

To review, a good RFD should:

(1) Evaluate all arguments. Dismissing any major argument made by either side without discussion is the mark of a bad RFD.

(2) Conclude by weighing all offense presented, after mitigating it with all defense presented.

(3) Read contested sources.

(4) Credit dropped arguments.

(5) Not make up its own BOPs or arguments or otherwise reference things that were not said in the debate.

I"ll start with my own assessment of the debate.

My RFD

God, this was a really bad debate. There are major dropped arguments on both sides.

(Pro 1) Rights violation

Uchiha says that the government should not be able to compel us to do *anything* because this violates our autonomy. Then in his very next sentence he concedes that the government has the right to compel us to pay taxes, engage in jury service, and follow speed limits. So he changes his argument to: the government should not be able to compel us to do something unless the compulsion is necessary to protect our rights. Unfortunately, he has transformed a contention about natural rights into a mere requirement that Con demonstrate that a draft is "necessary." Given Uchiha"s undercutting of his own point in *conceding* that the government *can* compel us when "necessary," I don"t really consider this contention to be about a priori rights, but rather it only requires Con to show that the compulsion is "necessary." I think Lannan achieves this by arguing that a draft is important in certain contexts to end wars.

Uchiha really undermines his own point here. Normally, you"d expect someone arguing for natural rights to argue that they *cannot* be infringed by the government or only in very limited circumstances (e.g. to prevent aggression, i.e. the Non-Aggression Principle, or to prevent harm, i.e. the Harm Principle). Instead, Uchiha gives a weak articulation with no justification (i.e. he never says where these rights derive from) and says that the government can violate his principle as long as it is "necessary" to protecting other rights. I think granting him much of any leeway in saying that this is a philosophical "rights" argument that has to trump other contention would be doing too much work for Uchiha. So ultimately, this contention is a non-issue to me as long as Lannon proves some reason that a draft is necessary to benefit the country"s citizens.

(Pro 2) Utilitarianism ("util")

Uchiha, once again, pre-emptively undermines his own point by listing arguments Con *could* make against him. He says maybe Con will argue that utilitarianism trumps natural rights. He never says *why this view is wrong.* Uchiha says he will instead show why he wins under util *and* under natural rights. Uchiha quite explicitly accepts the burden of winning under *both* systems of morality in order to win the debate. So, once again, Uchiha first contention is irrelevant because if Lannan wins under utilitarianism, he wins the debate.

Uchiha gives two reasons he wins under util. He says: (1) an all-volunteer military is more effective, and (2) enforcing a draft disrupts social cohesion. Both are very strong points. However, the latter (second) point is never extended by Uchiha in later rounds, so it can be ignored.

The first point that an all-volunteer military is more effective is really the heart of the debate. Uchiha offers a quote proving that military leaders prefer the all-volunteer force to a draft, and do not want another draft to happen. Lannan concedes this evidence throughout the entire debate. A strong point in Pro"s favor. I"m going to review Lannan"s case, then return to the all-volunteer military argument.

(Con 1) The right to raise and maintain a military

Lannan argues that Congress has the power--guaranteed by the Constitution--to draft people. Uchiha responds that: (1) the resolution is non-US specific, and (2) in essence, this is an example of the is-ought fallacy. The resolution asks whether you *should* abolish the draft, not whether you *can* (i.e. whether it is unconstitutional to do so). After Uchiha"s response, Lannan does not do much to bolster this contention, so it is a non-issue.

(Con 2) Drafts end wars quicker

Hidden within this contention is really two points. (1) Lannan argues that the draft was extremely necessary to ending the Civil War. Without the draft, there would not have been enough soldiers for the North to win the war. (2) Lannan argues that the draft helps end unpopular wars quicker, due to popular backlash. Because there was a draft, the opposition to the Vietnam War was much wider than it otherwise might have been, which ended the war more quickly.

In later rounds, Lannan bolsters point #1 by bringing up World War II as an example. Lannan says, "[d]uring times of war it may be necessary to use the draft," and says that during WWII, the draft was important to end Hitler"s campaign and rescue Jews from concentration camps.

Uchiha responds to the Civil War and Vietnam examples by arguing that although the draft did end the war quicker, it was normatively unjustified because both wars lacked popular support. Uchiha drops the WWII example because it was made in a later round, and Uchiha chose to focus his rebuttal to *that* round on refuting Lannon"s reliance on Thomas Hobbes, instead of responding to the WWII point.

(Con 3) Drafts help mix society

Lannan argues that the draft during Vietnam helped mix together people of different races and backgrounds. Uchiha responds that the benefits from this mixing do not persist after the war ends. Lannan in later rounds, instead of responding to this, talks about egalitarian pay, which seems irrelevant. So this is a non-issue.
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
1/27/2015 10:56:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
== Impact Calculus ==

This entire debate comes down to weighing a short quote from Uchiha"s source that said an all-volunteer force is better against the dropped example that Lannan used of WWII, in which Lannan said a draft was important to winning an ideologically-sound and important war. This is a really tough call.

Let"s look at what each debater said in the final round about their respective arguments. Uchiha says, "I showed that a voluntary army works *better* than a conscripted one-- by avoiding a military draft, the government can fulfill its responsibilities *more* efficiently." Lannan says that Uchiha"s focus on Hobbes was misplaced and says, "Pro has dropped the original argument so please extend this across the board." So both debaters basically just extended their original argument.

Ultimately, I vote for Lannan for two reasons. (1) I have to do less work to vote for Lannan. All I need to do is extend his dropped WWII example and conclude that sometimes a draft is necessary to get enough soldiers on the battlefield to win important wars. To vote for Uchiha, I have to cross-apply his argument that an all-volunteer force is better to Lannan"s WWII example, and I have to assume that it proves that an all-volunteer force could have won WWII. *But*, Uchiha never did this. He never said his all-volunteer force argument applied in every scenario. In fact, he specifically declined the invitation to say that an all-volunteer force could have fought in Vietnam or the Civil War. Instead, he argued those wars were unjustified. Uchiha seems to have thought that his all-volunteer argument was *not* a response to Lannan"s second contention. Thus, I have to intervene *more* as a judge to vote for Uchiha because I have to apply his all-volunteer force argument in a way he did not intend and did not have the foresight as a debater to think of himself. (2) I also vote for Lannan because Uchiha repeatedly said he had the BOP, so this is yet another reason not to do work for him. Because there is doubt in my mind as to whether an all-volunteer force could win WWII, and Lannan told me that WWII was an important war to fight, I consider that sufficient to defeat Uchiha"s BOP.

But, ultimately, this was a very poor debate. Both debaters dropped their opponent"s most important argument entirely. Also, Lannan could have won much more resoundingly by invoking Israel"s need for a military draft, right after Uchiha insisted that the resolution was non-US-specific. I think it was a strategic mistake *not* to exclude Israel from this debate, one Uchiha would have paid for dearly against a better opponent.

Anyways, I think you can see that this is a win by default. It is not so much that Lannan made better arguments, but that Uchiha made a *strategic mistake* by dropping the WWII example, instead focusing an entire paragraph on refuting Thomas Hobbes, which was an entirely irrelevant non-issue. As a judge, another way to write good RFD"s is to make sure you *punish* debaters for mistakes they make as a debater, so it"s easy to see why Uchiha should lose given that he dropped a very major example brought up by Con. You could just as easily say that Lannan should lose for dropping the all-volunteer point throughout (or rather not having a real response to it), but when two debaters *both* make huge mistakes like that, it is generally the person with the BOP that loses (which was Uchiha).

Now let"s look at other people"s RFD"s

(1) Anonymous RFD #1 [voted for Uchiha]

RFD (Pt. 1):

Before I get into the arguments, there are a couple of things that warrant mentioning.

The first is BoP. I'm not sure why Pro stated at the start of R3 that his BoP is to defend both of his contentions and refute every single contention Con made, since that's not how I perceived his BoP at all. It seems to me that all he has to do is show that there's a substantial net benefit to abolishing the military draft, which could result from accepting either of his opening contentions. He puts a heavy and unnecessary burden on himself here, and I think Pro should be careful to avoid doing that in the future.


I don"t know what the RFD author is saying here, but to the extent the RFD author is adopting a BOP that is *different* from the one the debaters argued for in the debate, doing so is improper. BOP is like any other argument, and it is unpredictable if a judge adopts his or her own BOP because the debaters have no way of predicting beforehand what that judge"s BOP will be, so how can they argue under that judge"s framework? While I think the "substantial net benefit" BOP adopted here is a reasonable one, it is not the one Pro advocated for. Pro suggested that as long as Con proved a single reason that a draft was necessary (i.e. won a single contention), Con won the debate (supposedly by winning under the natural rights framework).

Some of the worst RFD"s I"ve ever seen on the site start by making up a completely fictitious RFD and then saying one of the sides failed to meet it. It"s hard to show how frustrating this can be to a debater, to see a judge adopt their own RFD--one not articulated in the debate. The easiest thing to do is just show you an example:

Topic: "Resolved: The US should adopt a ban on assault weapons similar to Australia"s."

"RFD: Start:

To Start. The Resolution was difficult to interpret since it's discussing the US, using a ban from another nation. So I have to ask myself, which outweighs the other? Proving it worked/didn't work in Australia, or proving it would/wouldn't work in the US. I choose this:

If the ban works in Australia, I measure if it'll work in the US more.
If the ban doesn't work in Australia, that'll outweigh it's application in the US."


The actual debate was really about whether a ban would be net beneficial to the US, but this particular RFD author said he wouldn"t even *reach* that issue if he thought the ban did not work in Australia. Anyways, I digress, but it is generally a really bad idea to make up your own BOP. It is extremely unfair to the debaters involved. Try to avoid doing it.
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
1/27/2015 10:56:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The second is with regards to assertions. Both sides make a lot of them. Pro, you had the room to really explain and explore what it means for a government to subjugate its peoples' freedoms and rights in order to fulfill what it deems to be a necessary level of security. You certainly claimed that it was a fundamental, basic and even "natural" human right, but I never saw much support for those statements. Con, you made a lot of assertions as to the importance of a draft to society that looked backward and simply applied them going forward, and much of your rebuttal amounted solely to asserting that Pro was incorrect.

Overall, it seemed like you both stripped this debate down to a few points and left out the big picture of what it means to have a draft and specifically how a draft is used. I'm not going to factor that into my decision, but it seemed like an awfully large dearth not to talk about how a draft alters foreign policy. Both sides could have gotten a lot of traction there, but it seemed throughout that we had a birds eye view of the problem, missing all of the key details.

But I digress. Onto the points.

1) Rights Violation

As I mentioned earlier, I felt much of this part of Pro's case lacked sufficient warrants to really become as potent as it could have been. When Con counters that security is more fundamental, the response is good (that legal structures have nothing on basic human rights), but it just makes me question what makes any right fundamental. Con could easily have come back with the point that loss of human life is a loss of human rights in any case, and that if a draft could solve for that loss while minimizing loss of life among those conscripted in the process, then the draft would turn this contention. However, he never does that, nor does he question the fundamental nature of these rights. So I buy, with a heap of skepticism, the argument made here, and therefore I also buy that the rights violation is a potent one.

2) Utilitarian Critique

The main thing that needed, needed, needed to get answered back here by Con was this argument from Pro that says that an all-volunteer force is more effective. I could have seen points about the numbers not being anywhere near sufficient, but instead I see Con actively saying that "the US does have a large volunteer military force," and in the process shooting himself in the foot. Pro never points this out, but this concession is absolutely massive, since Con is effectively stating that the problems of the past with regards to low volunteerism rates are far less today, not to mention dropping his point about their larger efficiency. The riots point is a good one as well, and Pro buys into it by saying it's good in his contentions. The morale point goes uncontested, though it could have been far better fleshed out (what does it mean to have riots, why should we care about the country's morale and unity?), so that also goes to Pro.

3) The right to raise and maintain a military

I never saw the point of this contention. The resolution says "should," it's not a question of what is currently present. Pro's right that it's not specific to the U.S., but it goes deeper than that " this is not a conversation about what has previously been decided, but rather a conversation of how we should proceed. Much of Con's argument, especially here, remains mired deeply in the past and fails to apply it to the present. I don't even really see a solid harm to Pro's case in this contention. Con presents a possible harm looking at 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina (and he could have talked about how a military draft could be used for separate purposes than war in order to make this point), but he never gets past the first step. Hence, I'm forced to drop this contention out of the debate.

4) Draft ends Wars Quicker

This should have been huge, and especially since Con's point has not really been addressed by the end of the debate, this should be enough to take down the debate. Emphasis on "should." I'm still trying to find an actual impact in this thing. You get close, stating that wars end more quickly when the draft is enacted, but I'm having trouble figuring out why that matters. Maybe Con is trying to say that being mired in a war for longer is worse, but I don't see why. Both of you agree that the draft engenders strife on the home front, and you're trying to build a beneficial impact on that, which means that there would be less strife in the absence of a draft. That's a benefit for Pro.

There might be some harm to contributing troops to a war effort for longer, but Con never states what that is. Perhaps what he's getting at is that there's a reduced list of injuries and casualties, but I never see the links to that conclusion, nor do I even directly see that conclusion itself. A shorter war doesn't mean fewer deaths. At best, this is implied, but without more than an implication, Con barely gets any traction out of this at all. Meanwhile, this point supercharges Pro's contentions, causing more harm to Con's case than good.


The RFD author here is correct that Lannan has trouble articulating a clear argument, but improperly assumes that the entire argument is the same as its label ("draft ends wars quicker"). There is a basic principle in law that when you are judging a complaint (on a motion for summary judgment), it doesn"t matter what each side *labeled* their argument, the judge has to look to the *substance* of the argument to determine which side won; and if the substance is enough to win on summary judgment, it doesn"t matter if the argument was mis-labeled. The RFD here is correct that if Lannan"s entire argument was that a draft ended wars *quicker*, then this contention is really weak. But that didn"t actually seem to be Lannan"s argument at all. The actual substance of his argument, including his quote about the Civil War and his WWII argument, was that a draft may sometimes be necessary to achieve a favorable outcome. This particular RFD dismisses the contention too quickly based only on its label.
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
1/27/2015 10:57:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
5) Draft helps mixes society

Con makes this point, then alters it and makes a weaker point, and in both cases, I have no idea how they weigh against the broader issues both you and your opponent have made throughout this debate. What does it mean to have all manner of societal classes interacting regularly? Bringing a nation together isn't an impact. Emotional betterment is a weak one. There are reasons why this might help society at large and prevent things like poverty and hunger from getting out of hand, but I don't see those arguments, and the modification made in R3 just confounds the whole thing. The fact that they're paid the same by the military doesn't affect their relations, nor does it make any difference whatsoever to their social class. At best, this presents a small benefit through interaction that I can't weigh in the debate effectively.

Conclusion:

I suppose if I was taking Pro's statement on BoP incredibly literally and treating any small victory by Con as a win in and of itself, I would vote Con at this point. However, the only solid and large impacts of the debate, not to mention the ones that go markedly undercovered, are those made by Pro. As I see it, he's fulfilled his BoP. He doesn't have to win every single point in order to showcase a substantial benefit to changing policy in this way. Ergo, I vote Pro.


So ultimately, this voter did alter the articulated BOP in order to vote Pro. I think doing so is improper, as I stated above. This RFD also gave short shrift to Lannan"s WWII example merely because it was made under an improper label. I think this RFD gives Uchiha far too much credit, given that it was Uchiha"s *fault* for articulating the BOP in a way that really hurt him, it was his fault for undercutting his own natural rights argument, and it was his fault for never even responding to WWII -- a major war -- because he got sidetracked by Thomas Hobbes. Both debaters made a lot of errors in this debate, but I think this RFD accuses Lannan of making all the mistakes and gives Uchiha a pass on most of his errors.
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
1/27/2015 10:57:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(2) Anonymous RFD #2 [voted for Uchiha]

I felt this debate was weighed by impacts. Con as able to effectively establish a need and that the government has the right to call upon a militia in times of need. He was also able to refute some of pros contentions with the need for defense outweighing other contentions by pro. In turn Pro was able to hold up his BOP and provide a solid case for why the draft should be abolished. Both did well in laying out the framework for the debate and their respective positions. At the start of this debate I was literally assuming that this would be in regards to the United States, as would anyone probably reading this or getting prepared to debate this. I would almost award Con conduct because I view this as shifting the goal posts a little as pro argues from this point that it is objectively a bad idea in any country so strictly citing Us policies is not enough to outweigh pros impacts. Con however did not call him out on this nor did he contest it, so I'm assuming he was okay with what pro intended to argue. Granted if he would have challenged that, I think I would have ended up giving con conduct and possibly even arguments as most of his arguments are Us centric.

As an aside, awarding Con conduct for this reason would have been silly because the expanded topic actually benefits Con. Lannan actually could have responded to the all-volunteer military by saying that some countries don"t have that. Lannan could have brought up Israel to show an example of a country that needs a draft for its security. This RFD improperly thinks that Pro expanding the topic was actually a benefit to Pro, when it actually gave Con more ground

As Pro says con in only able to show that a Draft is justified under a specific interpretation of a specific document which by US law can be revised or re interpreted depending on the situation. As of now it is justified as Con pointed it out,but his only argument was for the US. Pros case applied objectively as a whole. So cons rebuttal was challenging only one nation while pros contentions were applicable to every nation.

Since this was the deciding factor in this debate It comes down to weighing self defense vs right violations, where as I felt even if a country is justified by doing a draft in order of self defense it does not negate that its i a rights violating. Thus I felt pro had more impacts with his main contention and case.

Debate - Pro


This RFD is pretty long, but fails to evaluate either the strongest Pro argument (an all-volunteer military) or the strongest Con argument (drafts end wars). It is kind of perplexing that this RFD votes based off natural rights, given Pro"s weak articulation of rights, his concession that the government can compel us whenever necessary, and his concession that he also had to win under a utilitarian framework, so rights are irrelevant as a voting issue.

(3) Anonymous RFD #3 [voted for Lannan]

This debate, had a lot of potential. However, I will say here that in this debate there was a lot of talking past each other by Pro and Con. Also I thought both sides presented interesting arguments for the application or abolishment of the draft. As such if there had been more direct engagement the debate would have been far more impressive than it was.

One of my main issues with the debate was a philosophical tactic which came back to shoot Pro in the foot. Basically, Pro says that Con did not defend Hobbes "Con gives us absolutely NO reason whatsoever to believe in Hobbes' theory, ". However, Pro did not defend natural rights. So at this point, both ideas were not proven by the sides using them. While, it can be argued that Hobbes was not democratic, this becomes irrelevant when first Pro talks about the draft been used in other countries then reverts back to saying its about democracy only.
[Red flag: This RFD is making arguments not made in the debate, i.e. that certain countries that are dictatorships use the draft, so natural rights are irrelevant.]So what should I believe, as Pro has given two differing points. For this reason I award this argument to Con. Additionally, I should state that when Con showed that Locke also placed the protection of the people by the government as a necessity, this hurt Pros argument. For these reasons I award argument points to Pro alone.

So, essentially we are left with good points about ending wars quicker brought forward by Con and those for Human rights/Utalitarianism brought forward by Pro. I think the human rights violation is a great point, however when Pro mentioned the Utalitarianism of the whole country, then human rights become vague as Con pointed out. Regarding, the volunteer army point by Con. I will admit this was interesting. However, this debate was about the draft and so while interesting it is irrelevant. In the same way the equality (society mixing) point of Con is not relevant to the debate. In contrast the other point about ending war also swings the debate in COns favor, while the Equality/Human Rights point works in Cons favor as described above. I should note here that the human rights as a stand alone topic works in Pros favor, however it became so intertwined that in the end it was Cons argument.

Finally, I think Con is right to point out that the full BOP was on Pro, as Pro said as much in the second round. This seals the debate ,but even at this point the debate was going in Cons favor.


I think this RFD had some solid analysis on why Uchiha under-developed natural rights, but ultimately it wins *worst RFD of the week* for making arguments not made in the debate *and* for thinking that the all-volunteer military point was "irrelevant." That point was Pro"s strongest argument, and this RFD dismisses it without discussion. I don"t really see how anyone can think that point is irrelevant. It"s relevance is really not that hard to grasp, since it is a *direct* comparison: an all-volunteer force is better than an all-drafted or mixed force, so a draft is bad. This RFD also gives Lannan way too much credit. The debate was hardly "going in [his] favor." At best, Lannan won by default because Uchiha made a mistake and dropped WWII. But Lannan"s arguments were confused at times and completely mislabeled.
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
1/27/2015 10:58:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(4) Anonymous RFD #4 [voted for Uchiha]

I think this was a pretty easy vote--both sides told me the resolution isn't US specific, but since 90%+ of the analysis is based off the United States, I'm basically left to vote on that. Pro showed that the US doesn't need a draft and it would likely hurt the military--Cons arguments that it was necessary in the past fail to overcome this because the debate is in the status quo.

That said, I don't think Pro's argumentation was as good as it could've been--he failed to draw any meaningful distinction between serving in the military and paying taxes so even if I were to accept his rights argument (I dont because he didn't justify it) I don't see a real link to the draft. Pro also missed out on a very easy turn to make on Con's contention three. Lannan, the draft did nothing but stoke up class resentment as the wealthy found ways for their sons to circumvent the draft. Listen to the song Fortunate Son, jeez. I think Con has a good argument that the draft could be necessary in some cases of total war, but he just doesnt impact this enough. A lack of Con offense means that Pro's argument about the military not needing a draft carries the day.

I think if either side had taken the position of the selective service system (and I think good arguments could be made for the selective service system being fair ground for either position) would've won because it captures the impacts of both sides without the negative impacts--we can actually implement the draft if we need to.


While I think this RFD has an accurate assessment of most of the arguments made in the debate, I think it unfairly credits Uchiha with an argument he never made, namely that while a draft might have been needed in past wars, we can make do with an all-volunteer force today in every scenario. Uchiha did say that an all-volunteer force was more effective, but that doesn"t mean it would have been sufficient in every scenario in which we"ve needed to use our military in the past. I don"t think the Civil War and WWII examples can be dismissed so easily by saying that they are past examples and we are debating the status quo. Implicit to Lannan"s second contention was the argument that the past ought to inform the present.

(5) Anonymous RFD #5 [voted for Lannan]

pro wins argument concerning rights and the insignificance of class mixing, con wins other arguments about it ending wars quicker, being better and more beneficial for the government. Technically these two should have tied, but as BoP is on Pro, CON wins.

This RFD is way too short and doesn"t even mention Pro"s strongest argument, which is that an all-volunteer force is better. It really just mentions the labels for various contentions. I"m not even sure when Con argued that the draft was "more beneficial for the government." This RFD also credits Lannan with proving that drafts "end wars quicker," which he never actually did. WWII and the Civil War do not prove that a draft ends wars more quickly than the alternatives. It almost seems like this person just wants to get his or her vote out there quickly to try to climb the voting leaderboard. This person wins *honorable mention.*

(6) Anonymous RFD #6 [voted for Lannan]

Pro could've made a strong case if he had used sources 1st round, but since he didn't, his case was unconvincing. Con directly quoted from the Constitution and further gave an example of why drafts worked in the past. Con lists the benefits of drafts. Third round, Pro claims he has burden of proof, but never responds to Pro, simply states "contention does not negate the resolution at all." Pro makes claims such as "to take them away from someone would be to de-humanize them" but he never cites the Constitution to address Con's sources.

This RFD would win *worst RFD of all time* except that I can"t construe it as anything other than a vote-bomb that should have been removed. It"s not even an RFD, so it can"t win my award. It doesn"t mention what argument of Con"s it actually voted on. It wrongly states that Pro offered no sources in Round 1, when Pro"s all-volunteer military argument was a direct quotation. This RFD also wrongly states that the only way to defeat someone who quotes from the Constitution is to also quote from the Constitution. While I understand why someone who is extremely religious might want to believe this is true, it is extreme cognitive dissonance to go from "the only way to defeat an argument from the Bible is to quote from the Bible" to "the only way to defeat an argument from the Constitution is to quote from the Constitution." This has to be the worst RFD I"ve ever seen on the site which was not immediately removed.

(7) Anonymous Voter #7 [voted for Lannan]

I don't know too much on this subject but I saw how Con had better rebuttals and most definitely had most reliable sources. I think Pro lost this debate due to not as much effort and source support. Pro's first argument of the debate, entitled 'rights violation,' got me to wonder because I could think of many ways the government does what Pro calls "violate" our privacy/rights besides military drafting. Con's first attempt in arguments were very convincing but he contradicted the resolution of the debate by stating all the quotes and facts concerning the USA, although the whole time, they both seemed to be going back and forth on the res. I believe Con had the best defense against Pro's claims that he was contradicting and for me that tops off my decision for giving him points for arguments. Close debate!

This is also a vote-bomb. It says Con wins "more reliable sources," but it doesn"t say why. It says Pro lacked source support, but it doesn"t say what claims of Pro"s needed more source support. And this RFD doesn"t actually explain its "more convincing argument" point vote. At all. The RFD says, "I believe Con had the best defense against Pro's claims that he was contradicting and for me that tops off my decision for giving him points for arguments." Essentially, the RFD is saying that because Con rebutted an argument made by Pro that Con was contradicting himself, Con wins the entire debate. This is *nonsensical.* You can"t win the debate off of a defensive argument. I think the RFD is referring to the Hobbes rebuttal to Uchiha"s argument that the draft is undemocratic because it"s unpopular. But who knows? This non-RFD doesn"t attempt to explain what it means by its vague generalities. This RFD should have also been removed.
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
1/27/2015 10:58:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(8) Anonymous Voter #8 [voted for Lannan]

PRO argues that the draft violates people's rights. CON's constitutional point showed that individuals do not have the right not to be conscripted. PRO returns to that point in the third round with discussion of 'natural rights' but he's talking about normative rights rather than positive rights -and CON rebuts that doing so jeopardizes national security. This point is tied. PRO offers that a volunteer army is more effective than a conscripted army, but doesn't show how or why. CON showed how in some wars that is not the case; implying that it depends on the nature of the conflict. CON also argued how it is in a country's interest to have a draft, with sufficient historical evidence. PRO talks about "social tension" and conflicts that with individual "emotional turmoil." CON posits some empirical benefits of joining the military; specifically of a pecuniary nature. As a judge I have to weigh "emotional turmoil" over "paying for college." CON wins, with points 2 and 3. Good clash.

This RFD unfairly dismisses Pro"s all-volunteer military argument, saying that Pro never showed how or why, but Pro said in Round 2 that an all-volunteer military was better motivated and had higher morale, which is why it is more effective. Plus, given that this source was dropped, Pro shouldn"t need an explanation, since Pro had top military leadership saying they would never want another draft. However, I do think this RFD"s analysis about the historical evidence is spot-on, i.e. Con did raise the issue of whether in past wars alternatives to the draft would have sufficed. This is a point that basically every other RFD missed.

(9) Anonymous RFD #9 [voted for Uchiha]

Con maintains the Federal Government trumps the individual, Pro counters that the rights at play are previous to and above any government. I'm not sure I buy into the concept of natural rights in general for different reasons, but this clinched the debate for me. If Con were to show that the draft does not infringe upon the rights of citizen, or if he showed that it was an obligation for them rather than an imposition by the State, this might have gone otherwise, but as it is I lean towards Pro.

This RFD mis-states Pro"s position, which was that the government can invade our rights when "necessary." And it uses its misunderstanding of Pro"s position to vote, saying that Pro wins that the government can *never* infringe our rights. This RFD suggests that Con had to prove -- somehow -- that the draft does not infringe rights. That"s obviously impossible. The RFD suggests that Con could have won by arguing that it was a civic duty, but Con"s argument that the draft is justified by the need to provide security to citizens should have been sufficient for this particular voter. The RFD makes no sense, and I question whether this person really read the entire debate, given that the RFD ignores other much more important issues. It seems like someone who read the first paragraph of the debate and decided to vote right there, then made up an impossible burden for Con.

Conclusion: There were some pretty atrocious RFD"s for both sides. Ultimately, I think Lannan did win this debate, and that is the result from the final score (21-20). However, at least 2 of the votes for Lannan should have been removed as vote-bombs, so the *way* that Lannan won does not justify getting what was in my mind the correct result.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 1:45:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 10:58:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Bluesteel, this was really good! I'm able to read your analysis on each of these votes and see the errors in my own vote on that debate perfectly. For instance, I see now that I explained an argument and the rebuttal from the other side, but that I didn't give the reason as to why the argument still stands or why the rebuttal defeats it. This is a fundamental error on my part, and one that I'll actively correct from this point on. I also failed to bring up the all-volunteer army argument completely even though it was a major point in that debate. Albeit this was 3 months ago and since then I've been exposed to your advice regarding impact calculus, offense/defense, etc. it still bugs me that I made that mistake, so I'll be actively watching out for that as well when it comes to leaving good RFD's myself.

I do have a question though, if a debater commits a fallacy in the debate, but the opposition fails to point it out or bring it up, should a judge still consider it in voting?

Thanks again for doing this work. Most people just complain about the vote quality, but rarely does anyone actually try to educate those of us who don't necessarily have formal debate/voting knowledge. I appreciate that you are doing so. I also think I'm done leaving RFD's in the vote section, it's just too short for debates of that nature which really call for an in-depth analysis that extends beyond 1,000 characters.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 2:36:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 10:56:16 AM, bluesteel wrote:
"RFD: Start:

To Start. The Resolution was difficult to interpret since it's discussing the US, using a ban from another nation. So I have to ask myself, which outweighs the other? Proving it worked/didn't work in Australia, or proving it would/wouldn't work in the US. I choose this:

If the ban works in Australia, I measure if it'll work in the US more.
If the ban doesn't work in Australia, that'll outweigh it's application in the US."


MD :(
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:05:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 1:45:41 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/27/2015 10:58:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Bluesteel, this was really good! I'm able to read your analysis on each of these votes and see the errors in my own vote on that debate perfectly. For instance, I see now that I explained an argument and the rebuttal from the other side, but that I didn't give the reason as to why the argument still stands or why the rebuttal defeats it. This is a fundamental error on my part, and one that I'll actively correct from this point on. I also failed to bring up the all-volunteer army argument completely even though it was a major point in that debate. Albeit this was 3 months ago and since then I've been exposed to your advice regarding impact calculus, offense/defense, etc. it still bugs me that I made that mistake, so I'll be actively watching out for that as well when it comes to leaving good RFD's myself.

I do have a question though, if a debater commits a fallacy in the debate, but the opposition fails to point it out or bring it up, should a judge still consider it in voting?

Generally no. Don't do any work for either side. And credit dropped arguments fully.

If the debater made a rebuttal response that exposes the fallacy, but doesn't name the specific fallacy committed, you can credit it somewhat. Also, if you're weighing two impacts and it's too close to call, the fallacy might be a tiebreaker.

But generally no. Especially depending on the type of fallacy. Base rate fallacy is an argument, so it'd be really unfair if I applied it to discredit a statistic that one side brought up. In contrast, is-ought fallacy is a bit different because it shows that the side that made the argument isn't actually affirming or negating the resolution. It's a tougher call in that case what you do with non-resolutional arguments. You have more leeway as a judge to disregard off-topic arguments, even if no one points out it is off topic. But I'd hope one of the debaters would.


Thanks again for doing this work. Most people just complain about the vote quality, but rarely does anyone actually try to educate those of us who don't necessarily have formal debate/voting knowledge. I appreciate that you are doing so. I also think I'm done leaving RFD's in the vote section, it's just too short for debates of that nature which really call for an in-depth analysis that extends beyond 1,000 characters.

I'm glad you appreciate my work. As long as at least a few people keep reading these, I'll keep writing them.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
lannan13
Posts: 23,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:33:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
LOL, I'm getting a lot of hate on these.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to read this thread, but once the posts get to a certain length, I can no longer justify reading them and not, say, a journal article lol. My loss, I'm sure.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:42:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:34:07 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I would like to read this thread, but once the posts get to a certain length, I can no longer justify reading them and not, say, a journal article lol. My loss, I'm sure.

lol, all good.... read this instead then:

http://www.cracked.com...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 8:19:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:05:58 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 1:45:41 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/27/2015 10:58:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Bluesteel, this was really good! I'm able to read your analysis on each of these votes and see the errors in my own vote on that debate perfectly. For instance, I see now that I explained an argument and the rebuttal from the other side, but that I didn't give the reason as to why the argument still stands or why the rebuttal defeats it. This is a fundamental error on my part, and one that I'll actively correct from this point on. I also failed to bring up the all-volunteer army argument completely even though it was a major point in that debate. Albeit this was 3 months ago and since then I've been exposed to your advice regarding impact calculus, offense/defense, etc. it still bugs me that I made that mistake, so I'll be actively watching out for that as well when it comes to leaving good RFD's myself.

I do have a question though, if a debater commits a fallacy in the debate, but the opposition fails to point it out or bring it up, should a judge still consider it in voting?

Generally no. Don't do any work for either side. And credit dropped arguments fully.

If the debater made a rebuttal response that exposes the fallacy, but doesn't name the specific fallacy committed, you can credit it somewhat. Also, if you're weighing two impacts and it's too close to call, the fallacy might be a tiebreaker.

Okay, that seems reasonable enough. It's always frustrating seeing someone fail to point out a fallacy committed by the other side, so I've always been curious about that. Thanks for the clarification!

But generally no. Especially depending on the type of fallacy. Base rate fallacy is an argument, so it'd be really unfair if I applied it to discredit a statistic that one side brought up. In contrast, is-ought fallacy is a bit different because it shows that the side that made the argument isn't actually affirming or negating the resolution. It's a tougher call in that case what you do with non-resolutional arguments. You have more leeway as a judge to disregard off-topic arguments, even if no one points out it is off topic. But I'd hope one of the debaters would.


Thanks again for doing this work. Most people just complain about the vote quality, but rarely does anyone actually try to educate those of us who don't necessarily have formal debate/voting knowledge. I appreciate that you are doing so. I also think I'm done leaving RFD's in the vote section, it's just too short for debates of that nature which really call for an in-depth analysis that extends beyond 1,000 characters.

I'm glad you appreciate my work. As long as at least a few people keep reading these, I'll keep writing them.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 8:32:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 10:55:13 AM, bluesteel wrote:

The underlining is a bit distracting. I wanted to say that you could use : to turn the RFDs into quotes to separate them from your analyze.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:29:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:33:05 PM, lannan13 wrote:
LOL, I'm getting a lot of hate on these.

A lot of hs debaters would pay ridiculous sums of money for this level of feedback on their arguments.
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
1/28/2015 8:29:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 8:32:27 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/27/2015 10:55:13 AM, bluesteel wrote:

The underlining is a bit distracting. I wanted to say that you could use : to turn the RFDs into quotes to separate them from your analyze.

I'll do that in future.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
lannan13
Posts: 23,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:52:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 8:29:21 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:33:05 PM, lannan13 wrote:
LOL, I'm getting a lot of hate on these.

A lot of hs debaters would pay ridiculous sums of money for this level of feedback on their arguments.

I know and I'm grateful that you spent time on my debates.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 8:04:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I supposed I can do a tl;dr on this if people want.
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
1/31/2015 8:22:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
== TL;DR ==

The debate came down to whether an all-volunteer force was sufficient on its own. Uchiha dropped Lannan's WWII example, which lost him the debate.

(1) Whiteflame's RFD

A really awesome RFD. However, it probably should not have used a different BOP from the one that Uchiha advocated, and it failed to evaluate the merits of Lannan's arguments about the Civil War and WWII, merely because they were mislabeled.

(2) Mikal's RFD

This RFD inexplicably voted on natural rights, which was a horribly underdeveloped argument by Uchiha, and did not mention the two strongest arguments (all-volunteer force and WWII).

(3) iamanatheistandthisiswhy's RFD

This RFD has decent analysis on natural rights, but won the TRW award for saying that the all-volunteer force argument was "irrelevant."

(4) thett's RFD

This was a great RFD, but dismissed the WWII example a bit too easily by saying that the debate was about the status quo. The past informs the present.

(5) 9spaceking's RFD

This RFD does no analysis. It makes passing reference to the argument labels and that's it, and it doesn't even mention Uchiha's strongest argument (the all-volunteer force) at all.

(6) truthseeker's RFD

This is a vote bomb. It doesn't explain what argument it found most convincing. It says Uchiha had no sources, when he did. And it says, inexplicably, that the only way to defeat Lannan's argument about the Constitution was to also quote from the Constitution, which is a really weird thing to say. The only way that makes some modicum of sense is using an illogical inference from "the only way to defeat an argument from the Bible is to also quote the Bible." The Constitution is not scripture, and an argument from the Constitution can be defeated other ways than also quoting from the constitution.

(7) JasperFrancisShickadance's RFD

This is also a vote bomb. It doesn't explain either its sources vote or argument point vote. It seems to suggest that it voted off on argument that was purely defense (a rebuttal *to* a rebuttal response).

(8) YYW's RFD

This RFD was the only one that really gave any credence to Lannan's WWII example, so major props for that. But it dismissed Uchiha's all-volunteer argument a bit too easily, saying it was never warranted, when a warrant was offered in Round 2.

(9) TrasguTravieso's RFD

This RFD is perplexing. It says it didn't "buy" natural rights, then voted off it. It completely mis-states the natural rights argument and then places an impossible burden on Con, saying that Con could never defeat natural rights unless he proved that a draft is not compulsory at all.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 9:50:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is way too long, I didn't read the whole thing.

At the same time I think it is interesting to compare a suite of RFD's. It shows how several good ballots can come to different conclusions or come to the same conclusion for different reasons. You say thett or YYW dismissed X argument too easily, and maybe there is truth to that, but I think the real takeaway is that there will always be ambiguity in evaluating and weighing arguments and personal biases will always creep into RFD's. This is usually brought up by critics of competitive debate as some cataclysmic inevitability that forecloses the possibility of fair debates, but your analysis shows that when you have good judges these biases and ambiguities are constrained by the shape of the debate. A judge may count a certain argument less heavily because it didn't resonate with them, but they are still evaluating the arguments made by the weighing mechanisms put forth in the debate. Judging is interpretive, but interpretation is constrained by the text.

Moreover, biases only come into play in a very narrow sense. Good judges don't just vote for the side they think is right, they evaluate the arguments made based on how they were made. The evaluation of these sub arguments is very likely to be colored by the judge's existing beliefs, but good judges still MAKE AN EVALUATION. They actually consider arguments they disagree with as viable and make a call on how persuasively they were made in the context of debate. Of course bias influences this process, but bias is only a gravitational force at a distance amidst the more substantive issues of the debate like content, strategy, and style.

I think that is what is being recognized when you say X had a good ballot though it made some errors. A good ballot follows a certain evaluative process AND meets a certain threshold of loyalty to the text of the debate. A good ballot can't pay lip service to all the points mentioned in a debate without engaging in an evaluation of those points. This is what is being done with RFDs that are clearly votebombs but list off a few things that were said in the debate as their RFD; this is generally the reason for a bad RFD. A good ballout also can't engage in an evaluation while ignoring aspects of the debate or interpreting arguments way outside the context of the debate or by developing arguments beyond what was made in the debate.
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 9:53:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also I'm kind of torn about the BOP issue.

I am inclined to agree that the theoretical limits of the debate, or in general the argumentative interpretation of any topic, agreed to in the debate should govern the judge's decision.

On the other hand there are plenty of debates where one side performs much better than the other but makes a stupid argument about how to weigh impacts or frame the entirety of the debate. I often do vote against the better debater in these situations, but it always feels wrong. It's a little better IRL when there are speaker points to vote a low point win. But I still sometimes feel like maybe the right thing to do is ignore the blunder and vote up the better team.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:13:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 9:53:50 AM, Raisor wrote:
Also I'm kind of torn about the BOP issue.

I am inclined to agree that the theoretical limits of the debate, or in general the argumentative interpretation of any topic, agreed to in the debate should govern the judge's decision.

On the other hand there are plenty of debates where one side performs much better than the other but makes a stupid argument about how to weigh impacts or frame the entirety of the debate. I often do vote against the better debater in these situations, but it always feels wrong. It's a little better IRL when there are speaker points to vote a low point win. But I still sometimes feel like maybe the right thing to do is ignore the blunder and vote up the better team.

I'd feel differently about intervening a little if it were a mistake in terms of weighing impacts, but Uchiha very explicitly said he had the BOP to defeat every single contention, which was plausible because he said he had to win natural rights, and his natural rights argument was that rights can be violated only if the government proves a *need* to do so. Presumably, any Con contention won proves a need.

I'm leery about altering the BOP in this case simply because Pro was so explicit about stating the BOP. I think Uchiha adopted a BOP that was *very* unfavorable to him, but to refuse to punish him for doing so is to refuse to punish bad debating.

But I agree with everything else you said about a good RFD evaluating every argument in an unbiased manner, but being able to come to a different conclusion based on relative weight of arguments.

This debate is a little less complicated though because of drops. Although I could see a plausible criticism of my own RFD being that Lannan articulated his WWII argument poorly, so I should value it less.
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
1/31/2015 10:19:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 9:53:50 AM, Raisor wrote:
Also I'm kind of torn about the BOP issue.

I am inclined to agree that the theoretical limits of the debate, or in general the argumentative interpretation of any topic, agreed to in the debate should govern the judge's decision.

On the other hand there are plenty of debates where one side performs much better than the other but makes a stupid argument about how to weigh impacts or frame the entirety of the debate. I often do vote against the better debater in these situations, but it always feels wrong. It's a little better IRL when there are speaker points to vote a low point win. But I still sometimes feel like maybe the right thing to do is ignore the blunder and vote up the better team.

But hey, coaches feel differently about punishing mistakes. It makes for a better learning experience.

"Con wins. Pro don't preemptively refute your own arguments and set up ridiculous BOP's for yourself to meet"

sends a stronger message than:

"Pro you win. But be careful about not making Con arguments for them and setting unreasonable BOP's for yourself."

Maybe punishing mistakes is less important on DDO.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:19:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 8:22:38 AM, bluesteel wrote:
== TL;DR ==

The debate came down to whether an all-volunteer force was sufficient on its own. Uchiha dropped Lannan's WWII example, which lost him the debate.

(1) Whiteflame's RFD

A really awesome RFD. However, it probably should not have used a different BOP from the one that Uchiha advocated, and it failed to evaluate the merits of Lannan's arguments about the Civil War and WWII, merely because they were mislabeled.

(2) Mikal's RFD

This RFD inexplicably voted on natural rights, which was a horribly underdeveloped argument by Uchiha, and did not mention the two strongest arguments (all-volunteer force and WWII).

(3) iamanatheistandthisiswhy's RFD

This RFD has decent analysis on natural rights, but won the TRW award for saying that the all-volunteer force argument was "irrelevant."

(4) thett's RFD

This was a great RFD, but dismissed the WWII example a bit too easily by saying that the debate was about the status quo. The past informs the present.

(5) 9spaceking's RFD

This RFD does no analysis. It makes passing reference to the argument labels and that's it, and it doesn't even mention Uchiha's strongest argument (the all-volunteer force) at all.

(6) truthseeker's RFD

This is a vote bomb. It doesn't explain what argument it found most convincing. It says Uchiha had no sources, when he did. And it says, inexplicably, that the only way to defeat Lannan's argument about the Constitution was to also quote from the Constitution, which is a really weird thing to say. The only way that makes some modicum of sense is using an illogical inference from "the only way to defeat an argument from the Bible is to also quote the Bible." The Constitution is not scripture, and an argument from the Constitution can be defeated other ways than also quoting from the constitution.

(7) JasperFrancisShickadance's RFD

This is also a vote bomb. It doesn't explain either its sources vote or argument point vote. It seems to suggest that it voted off on argument that was purely defense (a rebuttal *to* a rebuttal response).

(8) YYW's RFD

This RFD was the only one that really gave any credence to Lannan's WWII example, so major props for that. But it dismissed Uchiha's all-volunteer argument a bit too easily, saying it was never warranted, when a warrant was offered in Round 2.

A weak one, though, and one which Lannan countered -but yes, my RFD was short because it was a clear win for Lannan. I just didn't want to take the time to go into more detail... because I was irritated after reading the debate. Maybe that's a good reason... maybe not...

(9) TrasguTravieso's RFD

This RFD is perplexing. It says it didn't "buy" natural rights, then voted off it. It completely mis-states the natural rights argument and then places an impossible burden on Con, saying that Con could never defeat natural rights unless he proved that a draft is not compulsory at all.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:21:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 9:50:10 AM, Raisor wrote:
This is way too long, I didn't read the whole thing.

At the same time I think it is interesting to compare a suite of RFD's. It shows how several good ballots can come to different conclusions or come to the same conclusion for different reasons. You say thett or YYW dismissed X argument too easily, and maybe there is truth to that, but I think the real takeaway is that there will always be ambiguity in evaluating and weighing arguments and personal biases will always creep into RFD's.

I agree with that too.

This is usually brought up by critics of competitive debate as some cataclysmic inevitability that forecloses the possibility of fair debates, but your analysis shows that when you have good judges these biases and ambiguities are constrained by the shape of the debate. A judge may count a certain argument less heavily because it didn't resonate with them, but they are still evaluating the arguments made by the weighing mechanisms put forth in the debate. Judging is interpretive, but interpretation is constrained by the text.

Yup.

Moreover, biases only come into play in a very narrow sense. Good judges don't just vote for the side they think is right, they evaluate the arguments made based on how they were made. The evaluation of these sub arguments is very likely to be colored by the judge's existing beliefs, but good judges still MAKE AN EVALUATION. They actually consider arguments they disagree with as viable and make a call on how persuasively they were made in the context of debate. Of course bias influences this process, but bias is only a gravitational force at a distance amidst the more substantive issues of the debate like content, strategy, and style.

Yup.

I think that is what is being recognized when you say X had a good ballot though it made some errors. A good ballot follows a certain evaluative process AND meets a certain threshold of loyalty to the text of the debate. A good ballot can't pay lip service to all the points mentioned in a debate without engaging in an evaluation of those points. This is what is being done with RFDs that are clearly votebombs but list off a few things that were said in the debate as their RFD; this is generally the reason for a bad RFD. A good ballout also can't engage in an evaluation while ignoring aspects of the debate or interpreting arguments way outside the context of the debate or by developing arguments beyond what was made in the debate.

Excellent post, Raisor.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:25:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 10:19:27 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2015 8:22:38 AM, bluesteel wrote:
== TL;DR ==

The debate came down to whether an all-volunteer force was sufficient on its own. Uchiha dropped Lannan's WWII example, which lost him the debate.

(1) Whiteflame's RFD

A really awesome RFD. However, it probably should not have used a different BOP from the one that Uchiha advocated, and it failed to evaluate the merits of Lannan's arguments about the Civil War and WWII, merely because they were mislabeled.

(2) Mikal's RFD

This RFD inexplicably voted on natural rights, which was a horribly underdeveloped argument by Uchiha, and did not mention the two strongest arguments (all-volunteer force and WWII).

(3) iamanatheistandthisiswhy's RFD

This RFD has decent analysis on natural rights, but won the TRW award for saying that the all-volunteer force argument was "irrelevant."

(4) thett's RFD

This was a great RFD, but dismissed the WWII example a bit too easily by saying that the debate was about the status quo. The past informs the present.

(5) 9spaceking's RFD

This RFD does no analysis. It makes passing reference to the argument labels and that's it, and it doesn't even mention Uchiha's strongest argument (the all-volunteer force) at all.

(6) truthseeker's RFD

This is a vote bomb. It doesn't explain what argument it found most convincing. It says Uchiha had no sources, when he did. And it says, inexplicably, that the only way to defeat Lannan's argument about the Constitution was to also quote from the Constitution, which is a really weird thing to say. The only way that makes some modicum of sense is using an illogical inference from "the only way to defeat an argument from the Bible is to also quote the Bible." The Constitution is not scripture, and an argument from the Constitution can be defeated other ways than also quoting from the constitution.

(7) JasperFrancisShickadance's RFD

This is also a vote bomb. It doesn't explain either its sources vote or argument point vote. It seems to suggest that it voted off on argument that was purely defense (a rebuttal *to* a rebuttal response).

(8) YYW's RFD

This RFD was the only one that really gave any credence to Lannan's WWII example, so major props for that. But it dismissed Uchiha's all-volunteer argument a bit too easily, saying it was never warranted, when a warrant was offered in Round 2.

A weak one, though, and one which Lannan countered -but yes, my RFD was short because it was a clear win for Lannan. I just didn't want to take the time to go into more detail... because I was irritated after reading the debate. Maybe that's a good reason... maybe not...

I agree it was a weak warrant. It didn't mention superior training and the problems with getting normal college kids to be willing to kill someone. "Highly-motivated" is a pretty weak warrant. The better rationale is that drafted soldiers show an aversion to killing, which was a serious problem in Vietnam.


(9) TrasguTravieso's RFD

This RFD is perplexing. It says it didn't "buy" natural rights, then voted off it. It completely mis-states the natural rights argument and then places an impossible burden on Con, saying that Con could never defeat natural rights unless he proved that a draft is not compulsory at all.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:37:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 10:25:53 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/31/2015 10:19:27 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2015 8:22:38 AM, bluesteel wrote:
== TL;DR ==

The debate came down to whether an all-volunteer force was sufficient on its own. Uchiha dropped Lannan's WWII example, which lost him the debate.

(1) Whiteflame's RFD

A really awesome RFD. However, it probably should not have used a different BOP from the one that Uchiha advocated, and it failed to evaluate the merits of Lannan's arguments about the Civil War and WWII, merely because they were mislabeled.

(2) Mikal's RFD

This RFD inexplicably voted on natural rights, which was a horribly underdeveloped argument by Uchiha, and did not mention the two strongest arguments (all-volunteer force and WWII).

(3) iamanatheistandthisiswhy's RFD

This RFD has decent analysis on natural rights, but won the TRW award for saying that the all-volunteer force argument was "irrelevant."

(4) thett's RFD

This was a great RFD, but dismissed the WWII example a bit too easily by saying that the debate was about the status quo. The past informs the present.

(5) 9spaceking's RFD

This RFD does no analysis. It makes passing reference to the argument labels and that's it, and it doesn't even mention Uchiha's strongest argument (the all-volunteer force) at all.

(6) truthseeker's RFD

This is a vote bomb. It doesn't explain what argument it found most convincing. It says Uchiha had no sources, when he did. And it says, inexplicably, that the only way to defeat Lannan's argument about the Constitution was to also quote from the Constitution, which is a really weird thing to say. The only way that makes some modicum of sense is using an illogical inference from "the only way to defeat an argument from the Bible is to also quote the Bible." The Constitution is not scripture, and an argument from the Constitution can be defeated other ways than also quoting from the constitution.

(7) JasperFrancisShickadance's RFD

This is also a vote bomb. It doesn't explain either its sources vote or argument point vote. It seems to suggest that it voted off on argument that was purely defense (a rebuttal *to* a rebuttal response).

(8) YYW's RFD

This RFD was the only one that really gave any credence to Lannan's WWII example, so major props for that. But it dismissed Uchiha's all-volunteer argument a bit too easily, saying it was never warranted, when a warrant was offered in Round 2.

A weak one, though, and one which Lannan countered -but yes, my RFD was short because it was a clear win for Lannan. I just didn't want to take the time to go into more detail... because I was irritated after reading the debate. Maybe that's a good reason... maybe not...

I agree it was a weak warrant. It didn't mention superior training and the problems with getting normal college kids to be willing to kill someone. "Highly-motivated" is a pretty weak warrant. The better rationale is that drafted soldiers show an aversion to killing, which was a serious problem in Vietnam.

Maybe.... although an aversion to killing isn't unique to drafted soldiers... but that didn't really matter for this debate.

The real outcome here is pretty simply for the reason you said; vote Lannan because that takes less work.

I grant you that most people totally ignored the point that I brought up, too, because..... reasons?

The only explanation I can think of is that some people see different things more persuasively than others. As I mentioned above, as a guy who is incredibly cynical about this subject (and I am), I can more or less judge this debate with impartial disdain. I'm not sure the same could be said for many of the other RFD's. The reason is because of all the judges who voted for lannan in the debate, none of them did so for the right reasons and many of the judges that voted for Uchicha had some of the right reasons but had to be very creative when it came to weighing impacts.

.
(9) TrasguTravieso's RFD

This RFD is perplexing. It says it didn't "buy" natural rights, then voted off it. It completely mis-states the natural rights argument and then places an impossible burden on Con, saying that Con could never defeat natural rights unless he proved that a draft is not compulsory at all.
Tsar of DDO