Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Judging Question

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 3:47:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
WHO WINS THIS DEBATE?

=========

A:

I think MJ should be legalized because it has health benefits

B:

Health benefits are not as important as unicorns. Each time you smoke a marijuana joint, a unicorn dies. Therefore, MJ should not be legal.

A:

My opponent did not address the claim that MJ has health benefits.

=========

Who would you vote for? What does your vote mean? Why should people vote that way?

[Side note: judging at DDO is frequently retarded]
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:23:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If that is the entire debate, then no one wins. The people that read it are the real losers and they will never get that time back.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:43:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wouldn't vote for either. Neither presented any facts or evidence. So neither can be awarded points on the argument side. Neither presented any links, so neither gets points for that. Both had good conduct, so no points awarded.

However, A did miss a period at the end of their first sentence, so I could award 1 point (for the grammar category) to B, thus giving them the win. But 1 single typo is not going to make me cast that vote, for grammar to come into the points section for me, there needs to be a noticable difference in the level of grammar.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:43:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wouldn't vote for either. A never made any arguments, just a blanket statement; B's "logic" was wrong. I'd express my disapproval in the comments and go on with life.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:45:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 4:43:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
I wouldn't vote for either. Neither presented any facts or evidence. So neither can be awarded points on the argument side. Neither presented any links, so neither gets points for that. Both had good conduct, so no points awarded.

However, A did miss a period at the end of their first sentence, so I could award 1 point (for the grammar category) to B, thus giving them the win. But 1 single typo is not going to make me cast that vote, for grammar to come into the points section for me, there needs to be a noticable difference in the level of grammar.

Posted at the same time. Nice.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:58:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

In this case, there's nothing to rebut.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments". I always evaluate the arguments presented on
clarity,
coherency,
topicality,
logical validity,
and how well they answer the opponent, if they are rebuttals.

If someone drops his opponent's arguments, that counts against him.
If someone keeps bringing up irrelevant arguments, and never convincingly ties them to the resolution, that counts against him.
If someone make absurd or abusive arguments, that counts against him in both the Arguments category and Conduct.

in this case, since BOTH debaters have put forward EQUALLY BAD rounds, I call it a tie.

What's so controversial about that?
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 4:59:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

I gave you my reason for voting, based on the voting categories. Neither side had any convincing argument, any links, any poor behavior, or any serious grammar concerns.

ergo, no one wins points over the other.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:04:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 4:58:33 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

In this case, there's nothing to rebut.

Unicorns dying is something to rebut. It is obviously false and maybe weightless, but A doesn't point that out. Its completely dropped. A might be "right", but A loses the round because A has not presented arguments that prove their case.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments". I always evaluate the arguments presented on
clarity,
coherency,
Its debater's jobs to demonstrate (in)coherance.
topicality,
Its debater's jobs to demonstrate (non)topicality
logical validity,
Its debater's jobs to point out (il)logical arguments.
and how well they answer the opponent, if they are rebuttals.
ONLY THIS.

If someone drops his opponent's arguments, that counts against him.
If someone keeps bringing up irrelevant arguments, and never convincingly ties them to the resolution, that counts against him.
Why? If the opponent doesn't point out that unicorns are stupid, they're not rebutting anything.
If someone make absurd or abusive arguments, that counts against him in both the Arguments category and Conduct.
No you have to call abuse. The only time you can't call abuse is in the last round when judges IGNORE new evidence and arguments. There is no point at which the judge actually evaluates arguments in his own head. Its abusive to the alleged abusers if they don't have a chance to defend their tactics.
in this case, since BOTH debaters have put forward EQUALLY BAD rounds, I call it a tie.
A didn't bring up any of B's arguments, so as far as we know, B's arguments stand. B wins because A doesn't say "No evidence" "No weight" etc.
What's so controversial about that?
You're trying to figure out who's right, rather than who won the debate. Why not just skip reading the debate and vote on your own personal reasoning?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:06:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 4:59:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

I gave you my reason for voting, based on the voting categories. Neither side had any convincing argument, any links, any poor behavior, or any serious grammar concerns.

ergo, no one wins points over the other.
Like I said, you used your own opinion about arguments to guide your (non)decision. A has the BOP and clearly drops all of B's arguments. Even if they're stupid, A loses because she fails to rebut negating arguments.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:17:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:04:51 PM, Sieben wrote:

You're trying to figure out who's right, rather than who won the debate.

No, I'm not. I don't always, or even usually, agree with the people I vote for; I only vote for them because they made the better debate.

Let's cut to the chase, here. You're mad because I voted against you here: http://www.debate.org...
and you want to get the world to agree with you that I was mean and unfair to you.

Guess what? I actually agree with your side of the case! I don't think police officers should be required to shoot to kill; I believe letting them have leeway to shoot to wound instead is far more sensible.

BUT, you didn't argue that. You went off on an almost unrelated topic, and didn't confine yourself to the resolution.

I very much disagree with your entire position about legality of shooting police officers and legal status of the drug laws, justice, and just about everything politically as far as I can tell. That wouldn't keep me from voting for you in a debate "We should kill police officers on sight" were you to make the better argument.

Stop throwing a temper tantrum just because I VOTED AGAINST YOU.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:06:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:59:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

I gave you my reason for voting, based on the voting categories. Neither side had any convincing argument, any links, any poor behavior, or any serious grammar concerns.

ergo, no one wins points over the other.
Like I said, you used your own opinion about arguments to guide your (non)decision. A has the BOP and clearly drops all of B's arguments. Even if they're stupid, A loses because she fails to rebut negating arguments.

Not true. You only have to rebut semi-valid/logical points. If you plan on having to rebut every little stupid argument that has nothing to do with reality or the debate, the entire purpose of the debate will get lost.

Also, both sides have the BOP. If you want to convince people (which is the entire purpose of debating, to convince others that you are logically correct), then you have to prove it.

If I say "unicorns are real" and you say "no they are not." You cannot convince me otherwise without showing some evidence/logic to convince me to believe what you believe.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:17:33 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:04:51 PM, Sieben wrote:

You're trying to figure out who's right, rather than who won the debate.

No, I'm not. I don't always, or even usually, agree with the people I vote for; I only vote for them because they made the better debate.


Let's cut to the chase, here. You're mad because I voted against you here: http://www.debate.org...
and you want to get the world to agree with you that I was mean and unfair to you.
Actually I didn't mention you.
Guess what? I actually agree with your side of the case! I don't think police officers should be required to shoot to kill; I believe letting them have leeway to shoot to wound instead is far more sensible.
Thats not my side of the case at all. Thats even non topical because in the original debate, Pro explicitly states that police officers have no option but to kill.
BUT, you didn't argue that. You went off on an almost unrelated topic, and didn't confine yourself to the resolution.
I don't think its non topical at all. Police don't have a right to kill just because their life is being threatened. The right to kill depends on a theory of justice.

But even if you think its still non-topical, Pro didn't point that out. He had 3 rounds to. He didn't. How unfair is that to me if you just vote based on what you figured out in your head? How biased is that if you're going to salvage his arguments for him?

So what if you think I'm wrong? The reasons you think I'm wrong were never brought up by Pro. So you are basically making up new arguments, saying that they weigh the most, and then attributing them to Pro. And I never get a chance to rebut them... woohoo...

I very much disagree with your entire position about legality of shooting police officers and legal status of the drug laws, justice, and just about everything politically as far as I can tell. That wouldn't keep me from voting for you in a debate "We should kill police officers on sight" were you to make the better argument.

Stop throwing a temper tantrum just because I VOTED AGAINST YOU.
Its not just you. Its recurring. People vote based on their opinions, not the actual merits of debaters or the round itself.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:27:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:19:32 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:06:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:59:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

I gave you my reason for voting, based on the voting categories. Neither side had any convincing argument, any links, any poor behavior, or any serious grammar concerns.

ergo, no one wins points over the other.
Like I said, you used your own opinion about arguments to guide your (non)decision. A has the BOP and clearly drops all of B's arguments. Even if they're stupid, A loses because she fails to rebut negating arguments.

Not true. You only have to rebut semi-valid/logical points. If you plan on having to rebut every little stupid argument that has nothing to do with reality or the debate, the entire purpose of the debate will get lost.
If an argument is stupid, you need to say so. Even if they have 100 arguments, you need to address them. All it takes is something like "my opponent didn't weigh those arguments so you can ignore them".
Also, both sides have the BOP. If you want to convince people (which is the entire purpose of debating, to convince others that you are logically correct), then you have to prove it.
No. Both sides do not have a BOP. Pro has the burden of proof. Con has the burden of clash.
If I say "unicorns are real" and you say "no they are not." You cannot convince me otherwise without showing some evidence/logic to convince me to believe what you believe.
But if neither side calls out the other one for not having evidence, you have to remain agnostic.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:41:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:27:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:19:32 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:06:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:59:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 4:51:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
Sorry, are you guys trying to say that even if one debater doesn't rebut ANYTHING, you'll still use your own judgment to evaluate the arguments?

I gave you my reason for voting, based on the voting categories. Neither side had any convincing argument, any links, any poor behavior, or any serious grammar concerns.

ergo, no one wins points over the other.
Like I said, you used your own opinion about arguments to guide your (non)decision. A has the BOP and clearly drops all of B's arguments. Even if they're stupid, A loses because she fails to rebut negating arguments.

Not true. You only have to rebut semi-valid/logical points. If you plan on having to rebut every little stupid argument that has nothing to do with reality or the debate, the entire purpose of the debate will get lost.
If an argument is stupid, you need to say so. Even if they have 100 arguments, you need to address them. All it takes is something like "my opponent didn't weigh those arguments so you can ignore them".
calling your opponents' argument stupid could be viewed as a hit against your conduct. If you feel that your opponent's argument is not worth arguing over, that is a risk that you choose to take. Some people may choose to not take the risk, some may.

As someone reading and voting, I hear "every time you smoke a joint, a unicorn dies," and I stop and think, "really? That thought never crossed my mind, I wonder what his evidence is (since it is not something that I currently know, I need evidence to accept it, I'm not a sheep). Hmmmm, he didn't give any evidence, reasoning, or logic to back up that claim. Therefore, I don't believe what he is saying."

Also, both sides have the BOP. If you want to convince people (which is the entire purpose of debating, to convince others that you are logically correct), then you have to prove it.
No. Both sides do not have a BOP. Pro has the burden of proof. Con has the burden of clash.

That is not how you convince people, that is how you be lazy and always pick Con so you never have to defend your own ideas, only attack other ideas. If you want to convince people that your side is right, you have to provide evidence, reasoning, and/or logic.

If I say, "I believe in God," and you say "prove it." well, I can't, but you've given me no reason to change my mind about God, so my mind remains unchanged, and I still believe in God.

It's not a rule, it's reality.

If I say "unicorns are real" and you say "no they are not." You cannot convince me otherwise without showing some evidence/logic to convince me to believe what you believe.
But if neither side calls out the other one for not having evidence, you have to remain agnostic.

No, I have to remain neutral, not taking a side.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 8:01:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:41:05 PM, OreEle wrote:

calling your opponents' argument stupid could be viewed as a hit against your conduct. If you feel that your opponent's argument is not worth arguing over, that is a risk that you choose to take. Some people may choose to not take the risk, some may.

Yes. But the point is that you have to address your opponent's arguments SOMEHOW. You need to say "he didn't provide a source on unicorns dieing" or "unicorns don't matter" or something. Otherwise you are LOSING THE ARGUMENT.

As someone reading and voting, I hear "every time you smoke a joint, a unicorn dies," and I stop and think, "really? That thought never crossed my mind, I wonder what his evidence is (since it is not something that I currently know, I need evidence to accept it, I'm not a sheep). Hmmmm, he didn't give any evidence, reasoning, or logic to back up that claim. Therefore, I don't believe what he is saying."
The issue isn't what you believe. It is who won the debate. It isn't fair to someone if you argue against their case in your head. They can't argue back. What's more, they shouldn't have to. Their argument is wrong. So what? The opponent didn't even point it out. That's even worse.

Also, both sides have the BOP. If you want to convince people (which is the entire purpose of debating, to convince others that you are logically correct), then you have to prove it.
No. Both sides do not have a BOP. Pro has the burden of proof. Con has the burden of clash.

That is not how you convince people, that is how you be lazy and always pick Con so you never have to defend your own ideas, only attack other ideas. If you want to convince people that your side is right, you have to provide evidence, reasoning, and/or logic.
Debate isn't about convincing people. Convincing someone is a psychological feat. No one here will ever beat Sarah Palin at convincing an audience.

When you vote, you are not voting for an ISSUE. You are voting for a PERSON. The person who won the debate, even if their position is totally flimsy or did such a poor job that they made you even more certain that they are wrong.

I can sit around and tear up communist arguments in my head. It doesn't mean i'll never vote for them. You go by what gets said in the round, not whatever arguments you can imagine. You're not debating them. Someone else is.

If I say, "I believe in God," and you say "prove it." well, I can't, but you've given me no reason to change my mind about God, so my mind remains unchanged, and I still believe in God.
Its not my fault you're crazy.
It's not a rule, it's reality.

If I say "unicorns are real" and you say "no they are not." You cannot convince me otherwise without showing some evidence/logic to convince me to believe what you believe.
But if neither side calls out the other one for not having evidence, you have to remain agnostic.

No, I have to remain neutral, not taking a side.
In a debate, whoever drops the argument loses it. Thats why I said B wins the debate, because A doesn't address his arguments at all, even though she had a chance. That makes A an even worse debater than B, who didn't cite anything, but still came up with an argument that clashed.
Things that are so interesting:

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