Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Question about debating/judging

FourTrouble
Posts: 12,771
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 10:18:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
When you judge a debate, do you consider which side legitimately won, or do you consider which side won the most arguments? So, for example, say X makes five arguments for resolution Y. He loses four arguments but ultimately proves Y through his last argument. Technically, he should win the debate, because his last argument is enough to meet his burden. But if you're judging that debate, you might see a guy who only won a single argument out of five. Overall, he made worse arguments. Would you vote against him on that basis? Or would you vote based on who wins the debate as a whole?

The reason I ask is because it has implications for how ideal debate strategy. If I know I'll lose points for every argument I lose, even if they're close arguments, I'm gonna focus on the single argument I think wins the debate, instead of weaker arguments that aren't clear winners. The idea is to mitigate risk that you'd lose a debate, not because you actually lost, but because you lost more overall arguments than your opponent. Thoughts?
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 10:27:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:18:29 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
When you judge a debate, do you consider which side legitimately won, or do you consider which side won the most arguments? So, for example, say X makes five arguments for resolution Y. He loses four arguments but ultimately proves Y through his last argument. Technically, he should win the debate, because his last argument is enough to meet his burden. But if you're judging that debate, you might see a guy who only won a single argument out of five. Overall, he made worse arguments. Would you vote against him on that basis? Or would you vote based on who wins the debate as a whole?

Definitely based on who won as a whole. If someone fulfills his BoP, regardless of number of arguments, then he would therefore win in my opinion.

The reason I ask is because it has implications for how ideal debate strategy. If I know I'll lose points for every argument I lose, even if they're close arguments, I'm gonna focus on the single argument I think wins the debate, instead of weaker arguments that aren't clear winners. The idea is to mitigate risk that you'd lose a debate, not because you actually lost, but because you lost more overall arguments than your opponent. Thoughts?

Agreed 100%. You should vote on the debater that successfully fulfilled his/her BoP, regardless of arguments won/lost.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 10:41:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whoever wins overall.

If Con wins that affirming the resolution would lead to catastrophic nuclear war that would kill billions and Pro wins that affirming will give $500 million more to the social security budget, incentivize hot air balloon production, and increase the GDP by .003%, Con wins.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 11:03:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:41:17 AM, thett3 wrote:
Whoever wins overall.

If Con wins that affirming the resolution would lead to catastrophic nuclear war that would kill billions and Pro wins that affirming will give $500 million more to the social security budget, incentivize hot air balloon production, and increase the GDP by .003%, Con wins.

Well put.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 11:31:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:41:17 AM, thett3 wrote:
Whoever wins overall.

If Con wins that affirming the resolution would lead to catastrophic nuclear war that would kill billions and Pro wins that affirming will give $500 million more to the social security budget, incentivize hot air balloon production, and increase the GDP by .003%, Con wins.

Yeah but what if it's 0.004% though?
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,771
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 11:39:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:41:17 AM, thett3 wrote:
If Con wins that affirming the resolution would lead to catastrophic nuclear war that would kill billions and Pro wins that affirming will give $500 million more to the social security budget, incentivize hot air balloon production, and increase the GDP by .003%, Con wins.

So, if 90% of the facts are on Pro's side but Pro's arguments suck, and Con makes the best possible arguments he could make given his side, Pro still wins? I feel like there's something wrong about that result.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 11:42:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If one side affirms the resolution, it doesn't matter how many other arguments their opponent wins. Sometimes it only takes one well put argument to win.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:05:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd vote the side that wins the greatest probability and magnitude of impacts. In thett3's example, if the risk of nuclear war is miniscule and negligible but it is definitely proven that there will be a small increase in GDP and social security, then those impacts should win over nuclear war. But weighing magnitude and probability together is tricky. Ideally, the debaters would have instructed you on exactly how to do this. If not, sucks for them. Because then you use your subjective judgment to make the call you think is fairest.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:10:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 11:39:53 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/29/2015 10:41:17 AM, thett3 wrote:
If Con wins that affirming the resolution would lead to catastrophic nuclear war that would kill billions and Pro wins that affirming will give $500 million more to the social security budget, incentivize hot air balloon production, and increase the GDP by .003%, Con wins.

So, if 90% of the facts are on Pro's side but Pro's arguments suck, and Con makes the best possible arguments he could make given his side, Pro still wins? I feel like there's something wrong about that result.

How's there something wrong with that result? Con made better arguments. If the side with the most "facts" won, we would just be laundry listing arguments instead of making the best ones. Some arguments are more impactful than others and part of the skill of debate is your impact calculus.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:18:29 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
When you judge a debate, do you consider which side legitimately won, or do you consider which side won the most arguments? So, for example, say X makes five arguments for resolution Y. He loses four arguments but ultimately proves Y through his last argument. Technically, he should win the debate, because his last argument is enough to meet his burden. But if you're judging that debate, you might see a guy who only won a single argument out of five. Overall, he made worse arguments. Would you vote against him on that basis? Or would you vote based on who wins the debate as a whole?

The reason I ask is because it has implications for how ideal debate strategy. If I know I'll lose points for every argument I lose, even if they're close arguments, I'm gonna focus on the single argument I think wins the debate, instead of weaker arguments that aren't clear winners. The idea is to mitigate risk that you'd lose a debate, not because you actually lost, but because you lost more overall arguments than your opponent. Thoughts?

I noticed that people seem to vote for the side that they personally agree with and then try to rationalize the choice, but if they can't come up with a good explanation then they are forced to vote for the other side (although some people still don't do so and have their votes removed).
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 12:05:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I'd vote the side that wins the greatest probability and magnitude of impacts.

^ This.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:03:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:18:29 AM, FourTrouble wrote:

Meh. I normally flip a coin then make up a RFD that suits the result.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:18:29 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
When you judge a debate, do you consider which side legitimately won, or do you consider which side won the most arguments? So, for example, say X makes five arguments for resolution Y. He loses four arguments but ultimately proves Y through his last argument. Technically, he should win the debate, because his last argument is enough to meet his burden. But if you're judging that debate, you might see a guy who only won a single argument out of five. Overall, he made worse arguments. Would you vote against him on that basis? Or would you vote based on who wins the debate as a whole?

The reason I ask is because it has implications for how ideal debate strategy. If I know I'll lose points for every argument I lose, even if they're close arguments, I'm gonna focus on the single argument I think wins the debate, instead of weaker arguments that aren't clear winners. The idea is to mitigate risk that you'd lose a debate, not because you actually lost, but because you lost more overall arguments than your opponent. Thoughts?

It depends on what is meant by meeting a given burden, but if a single argument is enough to meet all necessary burdens for a side to win, then that side's winning that argument constitutes a victory for them. That person could have made far worse arguments on the whole, shelling out several really bad positions, but they only need one good one to see them through to a victory. I would certainly spend some time in the RFD chiding that debater on wasting so much of their time on other arguments and detracting from some essential issue, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't get my vote. If they met their burdens, they win the debate, plain and simple.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 7:46:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, we have Burden of Proof for a reason. If one meets the BOP while the other does not, then the winner is clear, regardless of how many arguments were actually made or how many of them were won/lost. One strong argument is all what it takes.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 8:26:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 10:41:17 AM, thett3 wrote:
Whoever wins overall.

If Con wins that affirming the resolution would lead to catastrophic nuclear war that would kill billions and Pro wins that affirming will give $500 million more to the social security budget, incentivize hot air balloon production, and increase the GDP by .003%, Con wins.

Is this despite the fact there would be less overall suffering if all people died?