Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is BOP?

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:26:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

It's burden of Proof. It should be explained when brought up, but I understand thinking the term is self evident. The person who has the burden of proof is used to determine which side must prove their case. If one side has more of a burden than anybody, than their evidence for a proposition, must outweigh the evidence against, while the side without BOP, can just negate the premises.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:27:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

I take it your not a big fan of mine craft.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:01:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Big Oh Penis.

Actually it stands for "burden of proof". Both debaters technically have a BoP to fulfil--Con to negate the resolution and Pro to affirm it.

The best explanation of it comes from Ragnar's DDO guide: https://docs.google.com...#

You'll find a beginning description of BoP on page 6.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
TheOpinionist
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:35:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
When you have a BOP, you have to prove the resolution of the debate. Your opponent has to "negate" that resolution, meaning that you lose if you fail to prove it, or if your opponent counters the arguments you use to prove it well.
IsaacBigEars
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:00:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:01:44 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Big Oh Penis.

Actually it stands for "burden of proof". Both debaters technically have a BoP to fulfil--Con to negate the resolution and Pro to affirm it.

The best explanation of it comes from Ragnar's DDO guide: https://docs.google.com...#

You'll find a beginning description of BoP on page 6.

I definetly agree with you and cannot see why only the pro/invigilator has to provide the big oh penis.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:00:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:00:14 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:01:44 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Big Oh Penis.

Actually it stands for "burden of proof". Both debaters technically have a BoP to fulfil--Con to negate the resolution and Pro to affirm it.

The best explanation of it comes from Ragnar's DDO guide: https://docs.google.com...#

You'll find a beginning description of BoP on page 6.

I definetly agree with you and cannot see why only the pro/invigilator has to provide the big oh penis.

Exactly! Though if you're debating a "noob", you can always play on the BoP a little ;)

Generally though both Pro and Con have a Big Oh Penis to prove.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:01:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
BOP is what happens when you play whackamole. You take your hammer and bop it on the head.

Seriously, BoP is a concept that DDO doesn't understand at all. Ragnar's explanation clarifies BoP as follows:

"In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias."

a) Evidence is not necessarily what proof is about. Clearly, he's shown ideological prejudice here. For example, proof can be defined by reliabilism instead of evidentalism: http://plato.stanford.edu...

b) Merely providing proof doesn't mean the BoP has been satisfied.

For example, let's say that to prove proposition X, support a, b, and c must be provided.

Pro then only provides support a and b. Has the BoP been satisifed? No, but according to Ragnar's rules, this is good enough.

c) Con does not always have a duty to disprove Pro. In the above case, Con could literally say nothing and still win the argument because Pro has not provided enough support for the proposition. According to Ragnar's rules, Pro is entitled to screw around, and behave like a kid on the playground who gets things wrong on purpose while expecting Con to chase Pro around.

Mature debate is not about proof versus disproof. It's about clarifying the semantics of the proposition at hand. After Pro proves proposition X with support a, b, and c, Con's real job is supposed to be to challenge what proposition X is really about to determine whether support a, b, and c are the correct supports. Unfortunately, Ragnar's rules don't cover mature debate at all.

To understand this, check out "value premise": http://debate-central.ncpa.org...

Unfortunately, DDO has no understanding of "value premise" at all.

d) Voters do not always need to read both sides of a debate to understand who wins. If Pro flops in the beginning, then you've read enough and can move on.

To be clear, this does not mean you should necessarily vote in favor of a side even if you know that a side is "correct" in a debate. Debate isn't about whether you stand for the right or wrong idea, but about whether you stand for the right or wrong idea correctly. It doesn't matter what you say, but how you say it. For example, you might know that a position on an issue is correct, but if someone argues for that position incorrectly, then you should vote against someone.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 3:29:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

It is a misspelling. It is really supposed to be BOMP.

https://www.youtube.com...
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 3:39:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

I assume this is relation to me, here I will clarify ;P

BOP is defined as Burden of Proof, the logic behind a BOP is that you hold the burden to prove any statement you make. So in a debate PRO is supporting the statement, for clarity the Resolution will be:

Fish are just birds in water.

--Pro must prove the above is true.
--Con must keep Pro from proving the resolution.

So if pro cannot provide the Burden of Proof to show Fish are just birds in water, then Pro loses and con wins, the misconseption people make is that they can just state "BOP is shared." because this is impossible unless con states they will be taking a side or if Pro provides them A BOP and con accepts it. If con doesnt accept it then they dont have a BOP.

Now this may seem complex but remember Con's job is to keep pro from proving the resolution, its not to prove the resolution incorrect. EX:

Resolution: The sky is blue.
Pro - Argues sky is blue
Con - Adequately refutes Pro

here con wins because pro hasnt proved that the sky is blue.

Ex 2:

Resolution: Dirt tastes bad

Pro - Prooves Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Attempts to argue that Dirt tastes good

Here Con takes on a BOP because they state it tastes bad, but con can win by arguing that it tastes worse than bad, that it tastes horrible, because then Pro hasnt fulfilled the BOP.

Resolution: Dirt Tastes Bad
Pro - Argues Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Argues that on a taste scale it is worse than bad.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 5:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

Are you sure you're not RXR?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 5:10:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:03:51 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

Are you sure you're not RXR?

I'm as sure that he's RXR as I am that Ayn Rand's ethical theory is the be-all, end-all.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 5:19:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:03:51 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

Are you sure you're not RXR?

Nope, I am
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 5:20:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:19:36 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:03:51 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

Are you sure you're not RXR?

Nope, I am

Lol jk, please don't ban meh.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:51:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 3:39:33 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

I assume this is relation to me, here I will clarify ;P

BOP is defined as Burden of Proof, the logic behind a BOP is that you hold the burden to prove any statement you make. So in a debate PRO is supporting the statement, for clarity the Resolution will be:

Fish are just birds in water.

--Pro must prove the above is true.
--Con must keep Pro from proving the resolution.

So if pro cannot provide the Burden of Proof to show Fish are just birds in water, then Pro loses and con wins, the misconseption people make is that they can just state "BOP is shared." because this is impossible unless con states they will be taking a side or if Pro provides them A BOP and con accepts it. If con doesnt accept it then they dont have a BOP.

Now this may seem complex but remember Con's job is to keep pro from proving the resolution, its not to prove the resolution incorrect. EX:

Resolution: The sky is blue.
Pro - Argues sky is blue
Con - Adequately refutes Pro

here con wins because pro hasnt proved that the sky is blue.

Ex 2:

Resolution: Dirt tastes bad

Pro - Prooves Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Attempts to argue that Dirt tastes good

Here Con takes on a BOP because they state it tastes bad, but con can win by arguing that it tastes worse than bad, that it tastes horrible, because then Pro hasnt fulfilled the BOP.

Resolution: Dirt Tastes Bad
Pro - Argues Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Argues that on a taste scale it is worse than bad.

Eh... your dirt example is an a fortiori proof, so not really. To be horrible, something must be bad.

This is actually important to realize as a judge of a debate in order to make sure you don't fall for tricks that debaters can use which aren't really effective. Sometimes, you end up with wise guys who say, "X doesn't exist because Y exists instead," when in reality, Y is a subset of X.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:57:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:51:29 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/29/2015 3:39:33 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

I assume this is relation to me, here I will clarify ;P

BOP is defined as Burden of Proof, the logic behind a BOP is that you hold the burden to prove any statement you make. So in a debate PRO is supporting the statement, for clarity the Resolution will be:

Fish are just birds in water.

--Pro must prove the above is true.
--Con must keep Pro from proving the resolution.

So if pro cannot provide the Burden of Proof to show Fish are just birds in water, then Pro loses and con wins, the misconseption people make is that they can just state "BOP is shared." because this is impossible unless con states they will be taking a side or if Pro provides them A BOP and con accepts it. If con doesnt accept it then they dont have a BOP.

Now this may seem complex but remember Con's job is to keep pro from proving the resolution, its not to prove the resolution incorrect. EX:

Resolution: The sky is blue.
Pro - Argues sky is blue
Con - Adequately refutes Pro

here con wins because pro hasnt proved that the sky is blue.

Ex 2:

Resolution: Dirt tastes bad

Pro - Prooves Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Attempts to argue that Dirt tastes good

Here Con takes on a BOP because they state it tastes bad, but con can win by arguing that it tastes worse than bad, that it tastes horrible, because then Pro hasnt fulfilled the BOP.

Resolution: Dirt Tastes Bad
Pro - Argues Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Argues that on a taste scale it is worse than bad.

Eh... your dirt example is an a fortiori proof, so not really. To be horrible, something must be bad.

This is actually important to realize as a judge of a debate in order to make sure you don't fall for tricks that debaters can use which aren't really effective. Sometimes, you end up with wise guys who say, "X doesn't exist because Y exists instead," when in reality, Y is a subset of X.

Its not a fortiori proof, Im not describing an atribute of bad, and I disagree, Horrible and Bad are not subsets of one another, they are instead parralel and thus cannot coexist without making the other obsolete, same i with good, or decent. If i put:

Resolution: Dirt tastes bad
Pro: Dirt tastes bad
Con: Dirt tastes [Attribute that isnt bad]
Then it sill works. And the reason it horrible isnt a subset of bad in this circumstance is because i stated "Con - Argues that on a taste scale it is worse than bad." So the attribute is instead a different point.

Its Pros job to prove the resolution, not go beyond it, or below it.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 10:48:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

The "BOP", in a debate, is the "burden of proof", or the onus probandi, which is basically the structure of a debate as to which position (affirmative or negative) has to prove the resolution as true. "Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

Generally, the burden of proof is split evenly or shared, i.e. both sides have to put up positive arguments affirming their position. In philosophy, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative except in cases of normative assertions, i.e. that involve proposed changes to status quo.

The BoP can be placed on the Affirmative (on DDO) in resolutions that are fact-stating, e.g. "Dragons exist", where the Negative need only refute the AFF's arguments, but *cannot* be placed on the AFF when it's a normative resolution, e.g. involving something "should" do something else, unless sufficient reasoning is given. The NEG shouldn't have BoP on any resolution unless the BoP is shared evenly, and giving full BOP to the NEG commits a logical fallacy.

More about the burden of proof can be found here: (http://rationalwiki.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

It's seen, for instance, in the Russell's teapot analogy: "Russell's Teapot or the Celestial Teapot is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim." (http://rationalwiki.org...)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:03:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

It means 'balance of payment'. It's made of the current account, the capital account and the financial account. The current account keeps track of imports and exports, factor income flows between countries and current transfers. The capital account takes care of capital transfers and transfers of assets like land and subsoil assets, copyrights and trademarks, etc. The financial account takes care of foreign direct investments, portfolio investments, other investments and reserves.

The BOP improves when you export something, there's a current transfer to your country, have an overseas investor invest here, etc. It worsens when you import something, transfer money or capital overseas, etc. It always equals zero. An current account credit means a capital and financial account debit, and vice versa.

(jk of course, though I'm not technically wrong or lying :P)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:58:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:48:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

The "BOP", in a debate, is the "burden of proof", or the onus probandi, which is basically the structure of a debate as to which position (affirmative or negative) has to prove the resolution as true. "Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

Generally, the burden of proof is split evenly or shared, i.e. both sides have to put up positive arguments affirming their position. In philosophy, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative except in cases of normative assertions, i.e. that involve proposed changes to status quo.

The BoP can be placed on the Affirmative (on DDO) in resolutions that are fact-stating, e.g. "Dragons exist", where the Negative need only refute the AFF's arguments, but *cannot* be placed on the AFF when it's a normative resolution, e.g. involving something "should" do something else, unless sufficient reasoning is given. The NEG shouldn't have BoP on any resolution unless the BoP is shared evenly, and giving full BOP to the NEG commits a logical fallacy.

More about the burden of proof can be found here: (http://rationalwiki.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

It's seen, for instance, in the Russell's teapot analogy: "Russell's Teapot or the Celestial Teapot is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

This post is incorrect Please ignore it. The bolded section is what is incorrect, this is why:

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

Its a common misconception that the BOP is innately share, however it simply isn't.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 1:24:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:57:15 AM, Preston wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:51:29 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 6/29/2015 3:39:33 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

I assume this is relation to me, here I will clarify ;P

BOP is defined as Burden of Proof, the logic behind a BOP is that you hold the burden to prove any statement you make. So in a debate PRO is supporting the statement, for clarity the Resolution will be:

Fish are just birds in water.

--Pro must prove the above is true.
--Con must keep Pro from proving the resolution.

So if pro cannot provide the Burden of Proof to show Fish are just birds in water, then Pro loses and con wins, the misconseption people make is that they can just state "BOP is shared." because this is impossible unless con states they will be taking a side or if Pro provides them A BOP and con accepts it. If con doesnt accept it then they dont have a BOP.

Now this may seem complex but remember Con's job is to keep pro from proving the resolution, its not to prove the resolution incorrect. EX:

Resolution: The sky is blue.
Pro - Argues sky is blue
Con - Adequately refutes Pro

here con wins because pro hasnt proved that the sky is blue.

Ex 2:

Resolution: Dirt tastes bad

Pro - Prooves Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Attempts to argue that Dirt tastes good

Here Con takes on a BOP because they state it tastes bad, but con can win by arguing that it tastes worse than bad, that it tastes horrible, because then Pro hasnt fulfilled the BOP.

Resolution: Dirt Tastes Bad
Pro - Argues Dirt Tastes Bad
Con - Argues that on a taste scale it is worse than bad.

Eh... your dirt example is an a fortiori proof, so not really. To be horrible, something must be bad.

This is actually important to realize as a judge of a debate in order to make sure you don't fall for tricks that debaters can use which aren't really effective. Sometimes, you end up with wise guys who say, "X doesn't exist because Y exists instead," when in reality, Y is a subset of X.

Its not a fortiori proof, Im not describing an atribute of bad, and I disagree, Horrible and Bad are not subsets of one another, they are instead parralel and thus cannot coexist without making the other obsolete, same i with good, or decent. If i put:

Resolution: Dirt tastes bad
Pro: Dirt tastes bad
Con: Dirt tastes [Attribute that isnt bad]
Then it sill works. And the reason it horrible isnt a subset of bad in this circumstance is because i stated "Con - Argues that on a taste scale it is worse than bad." So the attribute is instead a different point.

Its Pros job to prove the resolution, not go beyond it, or below it.

You don't know what a fortiori proofs are, do you?
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 1:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean your argument is like saying it's not cold outside because it's frigid.

To be frigid, something must also be cold.

Likewise, to be horrible, something must also be bad. These aren't parallel categories. One is dependent on the other.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 1:30:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Maybe the real problem is you're confusing qualitative with quantitative categories. I get that impression because you said "scale".

For example, if someone argues it's -10 degrees outside, and you claim it's not because it's -30, then you'd have a legitimate claim, but "cold" and "frigid" aren't specific quantities.

The same thing goes for bad and horrible. These aren't specific quantitative judgments. These are general qualitative judgments, so a hierarchy is involved.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 1:41:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 1:30:28 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Maybe the real problem is you're confusing qualitative with quantitative categories. I get that impression because you said "scale".

For example, if someone argues it's -10 degrees outside, and you claim it's not because it's -30, then you'd have a legitimate claim, but "cold" and "frigid" aren't specific quantities.

The same thing goes for bad and horrible. These aren't specific quantitative judgments. These are general qualitative judgments, so a hierarchy is involved.

No, that doesn't even make sence, i was using a scale as an evaluative measure. And taste is broad enough when it comes to quality that it is a large difference, Example: Mcdonalds is bad, like really bad. A gas station Burrito, THAT IS horrible, it tastes horrible going in and horrible coming out. regardless, the point is neg doesn't have a bop unless they accept one.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 3:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

Burden of proof. Basically evidence to back up your claim. The BOP is usually on the instigator of a debate.
Ashton
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:26:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 11:58:57 AM, Preston wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:48:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

The "BOP", in a debate, is the "burden of proof", or the onus probandi, which is basically the structure of a debate as to which position (affirmative or negative) has to prove the resolution as true. "Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

Generally, the burden of proof is split evenly or shared, i.e. both sides have to put up positive arguments affirming their position. In philosophy, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative except in cases of normative assertions, i.e. that involve proposed changes to status quo.

The BoP can be placed on the Affirmative (on DDO) in resolutions that are fact-stating, e.g. "Dragons exist", where the Negative need only refute the AFF's arguments, but *cannot* be placed on the AFF when it's a normative resolution, e.g. involving something "should" do something else, unless sufficient reasoning is given. The NEG shouldn't have BoP on any resolution unless the BoP is shared evenly, and giving full BOP to the NEG commits a logical fallacy.

More about the burden of proof can be found here: (http://rationalwiki.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

It's seen, for instance, in the Russell's teapot analogy: "Russell's Teapot or the Celestial Teapot is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

This post is incorrect Please ignore it. The bolded section is what is incorrect, this is why:

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

Its a common misconception that the BOP is innately share, however it simply isn't.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Not innately shared - I didn't say that. The BOP is shared in *normative* claims, but *not* fact claims.

And I recommended a shared BOP in all resolutions because only that makes a debate interesting.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:55:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 1:41:07 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/30/2015 1:30:28 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Maybe the real problem is you're confusing qualitative with quantitative categories. I get that impression because you said "scale".

For example, if someone argues it's -10 degrees outside, and you claim it's not because it's -30, then you'd have a legitimate claim, but "cold" and "frigid" aren't specific quantities.

The same thing goes for bad and horrible. These aren't specific quantitative judgments. These are general qualitative judgments, so a hierarchy is involved.

No, that doesn't even make sence, i was using a scale as an evaluative measure. And taste is broad enough when it comes to quality that it is a large difference, Example: Mcdonalds is bad, like really bad. A gas station Burrito, THAT IS horrible, it tastes horrible going in and horrible coming out. regardless, the point is neg doesn't have a bop unless they accept one.

Yea, but the question is how is "horrible" defined?

Horrible is not merely different from bad. There are lots of categories which are different from bad.

Horrible is badder than bad which means it has to be bad. Therefore, for something to be horrible, it has to be bad too.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:56:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 3:11:34 PM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

Burden of proof. Basically evidence to back up your claim. The BOP is usually on the instigator of a debate.

Usually, but sometimes, instigators take negative positions to give others who wish to argue positive points the opportunity to debate.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:57:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:26:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:58:57 AM, Preston wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:48:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

The "BOP", in a debate, is the "burden of proof", or the onus probandi, which is basically the structure of a debate as to which position (affirmative or negative) has to prove the resolution as true. "Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

Generally, the burden of proof is split evenly or shared, i.e. both sides have to put up positive arguments affirming their position. In philosophy, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative except in cases of normative assertions, i.e. that involve proposed changes to status quo.

The BoP can be placed on the Affirmative (on DDO) in resolutions that are fact-stating, e.g. "Dragons exist", where the Negative need only refute the AFF's arguments, but *cannot* be placed on the AFF when it's a normative resolution, e.g. involving something "should" do something else, unless sufficient reasoning is given. The NEG shouldn't have BoP on any resolution unless the BoP is shared evenly, and giving full BOP to the NEG commits a logical fallacy.

More about the burden of proof can be found here: (http://rationalwiki.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

It's seen, for instance, in the Russell's teapot analogy: "Russell's Teapot or the Celestial Teapot is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

This post is incorrect Please ignore it. The bolded section is what is incorrect, this is why:

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

Its a common misconception that the BOP is innately share, however it simply isn't.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Not innately shared - I didn't say that. The BOP is shared in *normative* claims, but *not* fact claims.

And I recommended a shared BOP in all resolutions because only that makes a debate interesting.

If you claim a fact exists, you have to prove it. You can't just make an empty claim and expect to get away with it.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 6:19:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 10:57:11 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:26:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/30/2015 11:58:57 AM, Preston wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:48:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:23:27 AM, IsaacBigEars wrote:
Debaters keep on mentioning this but actually, what is BOP?

The "BOP", in a debate, is the "burden of proof", or the onus probandi, which is basically the structure of a debate as to which position (affirmative or negative) has to prove the resolution as true. "Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

Generally, the burden of proof is split evenly or shared, i.e. both sides have to put up positive arguments affirming their position. In philosophy, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative except in cases of normative assertions, i.e. that involve proposed changes to status quo.

The BoP can be placed on the Affirmative (on DDO) in resolutions that are fact-stating, e.g. "Dragons exist", where the Negative need only refute the AFF's arguments, but *cannot* be placed on the AFF when it's a normative resolution, e.g. involving something "should" do something else, unless sufficient reasoning is given. The NEG shouldn't have BoP on any resolution unless the BoP is shared evenly, and giving full BOP to the NEG commits a logical fallacy.

More about the burden of proof can be found here: (http://rationalwiki.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

It's seen, for instance, in the Russell's teapot analogy: "Russell's Teapot or the Celestial Teapot is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim." (http://rationalwiki.org...)

This post is incorrect Please ignore it. The bolded section is what is incorrect, this is why:

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

Its a common misconception that the BOP is innately share, however it simply isn't.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Not innately shared - I didn't say that. The BOP is shared in *normative* claims, but *not* fact claims.

And I recommended a shared BOP in all resolutions because only that makes a debate interesting.

If you claim a fact exists, you have to prove it. You can't just make an empty claim and expect to get away with it.

Obviously. *Normative* claims is, for example, "The United States should have a death penalty", versus a fact claim, e.g. "God exists". In fact claims, the BOP is on Pro, in normative claims, it's shared.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass