Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Forum Concession

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:44:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In professional chess, pursuing a doomed game to completion (when the outcome is evident to the losing player) is poor form. In fact, it's insulting, because it supposes that the dominant player lacks the skill to identify what sequence compels a checkmate, or even worse it suggests that the losing player is too prideful to confront his defeat.

This is not unlike engaging in a debate or a forum argument, and I think that principle of acknowledged loss ought to carry over. Obviously defeat in a game of chess is objectively identifiable well in advance of its fruition, while defeat in an argument is not. What I'm adverting to, however, are those circumstances under which the losing party understands that he has lost. Does that person not have an obligation to acknowledge the defeat and confront his loss with a statement of concession?

To continue to advocate a position that the speaker understands is in error is at best a waste of everyone's time, and at worst an attempt at deceit. So the question here is, do you believe that we should have norms against it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:16:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I disagree that the Site should shame such people. Rather, more people should realize that the conversation needs to end whenever it becomes clear that the other guy can't be reasoned with.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:27:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:44:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
In professional chess, pursuing a doomed game to completion (when the outcome is evident to the losing player) is poor form. In fact, it's insulting, because it supposes that the dominant player lacks the skill to identify what sequence compels a checkmate, or even worse it suggests that the losing player is too prideful to confront his defeat.

This is not unlike engaging in a debate or a forum argument, and I think that principle of acknowledged loss ought to carry over. Obviously defeat in a game of chess is objectively identifiable well in advance of its fruition, while defeat in an argument is not. What I'm adverting to, however, are those circumstances under which the losing party understands that he has lost. Does that person not have an obligation to acknowledge the defeat and confront his loss with a statement of concession?

To continue to advocate a position that the speaker understands is in error is at best a waste of everyone's time, and at worst an attempt at deceit. So the question here is, do you believe that we should have norms against it?

I like the analogy
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:30:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
If this happened no one would continue to argue with me past two or three posts
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
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:32:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Lol
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:32:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Is this based off of your experiences, Ike?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:52:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Not particularly, as obligations on the Internet are *very* different to those that exist in real life.

Essentially~~it should be the choice of the individual(s) in question to decide whether they want to continue or not, without any specific standard or encouragement of concession involved. These kind of posts will inevitably conclude anyway, as users will eventually get bored or have very little to say~~if they don't, then that's their prerogative
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.'
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:56:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:44:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
In professional chess, pursuing a doomed game to completion (when the outcome is evident to the losing player) is poor form. In fact, it's insulting, because it supposes that the dominant player lacks the skill to identify what sequence compels a checkmate, or even worse it suggests that the losing player is too prideful to confront his defeat.

This is not unlike engaging in a debate or a forum argument, and I think that principle of acknowledged loss ought to carry over. Obviously defeat in a game of chess is objectively identifiable well in advance of its fruition, while defeat in an argument is not. What I'm adverting to, however, are those circumstances under which the losing party understands that he has lost. Does that person not have an obligation to acknowledge the defeat and confront his loss with a statement of concession?

To continue to advocate a position that the speaker understands is in error is at best a waste of everyone's time, and at worst an attempt at deceit. So the question here is, do you believe that we should have norms against it?

Debates and forums are two different things that I wouldn't put in the same category so I'll address them separately.

Debates in contrast to chess are subjective. There are times when you would feel that you are losing but you still owe it to your opponent as well as the readers to do your best to work your way out a hole. There are a limited number of moves in chess and once those moves are exhausted, you can't do anything else. Debates allow great freedom and creativity to bounce back. The ways in which you can counter your opponent aren't numbered. So the analogy to chess isn't accurate.

Forums are a whole different ball game. They are not a "contest" at all but a discussion. You can't "win" or "lose" an argument in the forum. If you think your opponent made a good point, acknowledge it and move on to subjects or subtopics that are more interesting. People can just go off on tangents in the forums and have an enriching discussion so there's no need to cut things off. If you mean to say that when presented with a compelling argument, members should acknowledge it, then sure I agree. But it still isn't analogous to chess because there is no such thing as "winning" or "losing." If people want to "win" arguments, they would simply challenge their opponent to a debate.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:42:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:56:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:44:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
In professional chess, pursuing a doomed game to completion (when the outcome is evident to the losing player) is poor form. In fact, it's insulting, because it supposes that the dominant player lacks the skill to identify what sequence compels a checkmate, or even worse it suggests that the losing player is too prideful to confront his defeat.

This is not unlike engaging in a debate or a forum argument, and I think that principle of acknowledged loss ought to carry over. Obviously defeat in a game of chess is objectively identifiable well in advance of its fruition, while defeat in an argument is not. What I'm adverting to, however, are those circumstances under which the losing party understands that he has lost. Does that person not have an obligation to acknowledge the defeat and confront his loss with a statement of concession?

To continue to advocate a position that the speaker understands is in error is at best a waste of everyone's time, and at worst an attempt at deceit. So the question here is, do you believe that we should have norms against it?

Debates and forums are two different things that I wouldn't put in the same category so I'll address them separately.

Debates in contrast to chess are subjective. There are times when you would feel that you are losing but you still owe it to your opponent as well as the readers to do your best to work your way out a hole. There are a limited number of moves in chess and once those moves are exhausted, you can't do anything else. Debates allow great freedom and creativity to bounce back. The ways in which you can counter your opponent aren't numbered. So the analogy to chess isn't accurate.

Forums are a whole different ball game. They are not a "contest" at all but a discussion. You can't "win" or "lose" an argument in the forum. If you think your opponent made a good point, acknowledge it and move on to subjects or subtopics that are more interesting. People can just go off on tangents in the forums and have an enriching discussion so there's no need to cut things off. If you mean to say that when presented with a compelling argument, members should acknowledge it, then sure I agree. But it still isn't analogous to chess because there is no such thing as "winning" or "losing." If people want to "win" arguments, they would simply challenge their opponent to a debate.

There are winners and losers insofar as an argument can be undermined by evidence to such a point that its proponent sees no genuine reason to continue espousing it. And besides, there's no reason to pursue the comparison down its minutia. This is, like you had mentioned, merely a matter of acknowledging a compelling argument and a failing argument with a sense of candor, rather than believing one thing, but expressing another because the thought of having defended an invalid position or having experienced a lapse of reasoning is too noxious to the ego.

Discussion need not end. People should just be willing to identify a defeated point for what it is.

I grant you, however, that this can't reasonably apply to debates, for the reason that the object is the sport of the interaction rather than an honest exchange of ideas. But just ditching a discussion in which your point has been invalidated, without acknowledging the invalidation or continuing to propound a contention despite the fact that you clearly know it's weak seems deceptive and improper.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:55:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
You haven't answered my question yet.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:14:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
A culture which disdains stubbornness would be great imo. But irl our culture isn't like this and thus you can't feasibly create a totally separate online culture.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 1:33:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm more annoyed by people who simply stop responding once they've lost. I'm being actively ignored by Donald.Keller right now in his Smoking Ban thread. He's neither responding to my rebuttal nor conceding that his argument was dumb, which is quite irritating.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:02:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
If this happened no one would continue to argue with me past two or three posts
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:07:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
In chess, there are ways to concretely know when checkmate is inevitable.

In the forums, even if such ways existed, most would fail to recognize them. This is due to the fact that most people believe, no matter how objectively stupid their argument is, that it is a good one, because they made it.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:50:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
If this happened no one would continue to argue with me past two or three posts

I disagree.
-- 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 --
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 8:41:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 1:33:49 AM, spacetime wrote:
I'm more annoyed by people who simply stop responding once they've lost. I'm being actively ignored by Donald.Keller right now in his Smoking Ban thread. He's neither responding to my rebuttal nor conceding that his argument was dumb, which is quite irritating.

I've seen a few people who do this. SM2 is another example. Imo it's a bit childish.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 12:45:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:16:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I disagree that the Site should shame such people. Rather, more people should realize that the conversation needs to end whenever it becomes clear that the other guy can't be reasoned with.

You're on DDO. You have no shame.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 5:40:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 12:45:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:16:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I disagree that the Site should shame such people. Rather, more people should realize that the conversation needs to end whenever it becomes clear that the other guy can't be reasoned with.

You're on DDO. You have no shame.

lollipop
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 11:51:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In the forums, yes. But in formal debates, I don't think it should be an obligation. I've never heard of anyone feeling insulted because their opponent didn't concede an argument (frustrated or annoyed, sure). I can think of three good reasons for conceding in debates.

1. To give the other guy the win if you think he deserves it. If you concede, voters will almost always vote against you.
2. To make it clear to everyone that you no longer hold the same position.
3. To save the other guy time.

But sometimes I think it makes sense just to finish out a debate even when you think you've lost. Debates are not only about trying to reach an understanding between two parties. That's why we do devil's advocate debates, because there's value in presenting two sides of an issue side by side and comparing them in real time.