Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Why I dislike short round lengths

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:01:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Whenever one sets up a debate on debate.org, one is required to set a limit on how many characters each round can contain. While having a character limit in a debate can help clamp down on certain problems with debating, such as a debater posting a barrage of arguments that barely make sense and subsequently proclaming victory because the other debater wasn't able to address them all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits can also cause problems of their own.

First of all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits also make it more difficult for a debater to elaborate on his arguments. This makes it more difficult to argue for an unpopular position for the sake of fun: if one were to make the argument that abortion is good because murder is good, rather than that abortion is morally justifiable because it isn't murder, and one wasn't able to elaborate on his points well, one's argument would look more like an inflammatory troll post than a sincere attempt at playing devil's advocate because all of the justifications for and reasoning behind the argument would have had to be cut down or removed entirely to fit the argument in the round's character limit. Taking on unpopular positions and playing devil's advocate is an important part of debate, and making it harder through a round limit would therefore ruin debate for many people.

In addition to that, absurdly small character limits can create debates that are uninteresting to read. When a debater tries to shorten his argument, he would take out the joining words that both connect sentences and give them varied sentence beginnings, creating a confusing-to-read debate round that sounds like it was written by a fifth grader.

Debater one said:
Abortion isn't murder. Fetuses aren't kids. Abortion gives people freedom. Women need freedom. We should allow abortion.

Debater two said:
Abortion is murder; fetuses are alive. Alternatives to abortion exist. We shouldn't allow abortions.

In conclusion, character limits are bad. We should have longer character limits. Why am I talking like this? Why aren't any of the sentences connected? Why doesn't any sentence have more than seven words? Why can't I elaborate? Oh right, there's a character limit.
:) nac
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:24:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:01:09 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Whenever one sets up a debate on debate.org, one is required to set a limit on how many characters each round can contain. While having a character limit in a debate can help clamp down on certain problems with debating, such as a debater posting a barrage of arguments that barely make sense and subsequently proclaming victory because the other debater wasn't able to address them all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits can also cause problems of their own.

First of all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits also make it more difficult for a debater to elaborate on his arguments. This makes it more difficult to argue for an unpopular position for the sake of fun: if one were to make the argument that abortion is good because murder is good, rather than that abortion is morally justifiable because it isn't murder, and one wasn't able to elaborate on his points well, one's argument would look more like an inflammatory troll post than a sincere attempt at playing devil's advocate because all of the justifications for and reasoning behind the argument would have had to be cut down or removed entirely to fit the argument in the round's character limit. Taking on unpopular positions and playing devil's advocate is an important part of debate, and making it harder through a round limit would therefore ruin debate for many people.

In addition to that, absurdly small character limits can create debates that are uninteresting to read. When a debater tries to shorten his argument, he would take out the joining words that both connect sentences and give them varied sentence beginnings, creating a confusing-to-read debate round that sounds like it was written by a fifth grader.

Debater one said:
Abortion isn't murder. Fetuses aren't kids. Abortion gives people freedom. Women need freedom. We should allow abortion.

Debater two said:
Abortion is murder; fetuses are alive. Alternatives to abortion exist. We shouldn't allow abortions.


In conclusion, character limits are bad. We should have longer character limits. Why am I talking like this? Why aren't any of the sentences connected? Why doesn't any sentence have more than seven words? Why can't I elaborate? Oh right, there's a character limit.

Although some debates may require more characters, many other debates can be argued well with a shorter character limit. Recently I have been instigating debates with between 2000 and 4000 character limit rounds, and I have been liking it. Many people, me included often don't have the time/motivation to put together 8,000 character rounds. I wonder why 8,000 to 10,000 character debates are the norm.

Also, judging debates with shorter character limits is nice because they are quicker to judge, and you know that the players only had room to include the most important stuff, so you have less unimportant parts to read over.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:51:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
One of my favorite debates that helps demonstrate that, most of the time, you have enough characters to debate (some topics MIGHT be an exception).
http://www.debate.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:18:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Debate is rarely a contest of who is right and who is wrong. It's a contest of skill in writing, thinking, forming arguments, and being persuasive. I think part of that skill involves being able to make one's case articulately and succinctly. So I am all for character limits. It adds to the challenge--to be able to make just as strong of a case, but in fewer words than you might like. It's part of the game. Plus, if both sides are equally limited, then it's fair.

There are other advantages, too. It makes it less likely that your opponent will forfeit, and it makes it more likely that people will vote.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.
"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
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:44:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:18:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
Debate is rarely a contest of who is right and who is wrong. It's a contest of skill in writing, thinking, forming arguments, and being persuasive. I think part of that skill involves being able to make one's case articulately and succinctly. So I am all for character limits. It adds to the challenge--to be able to make just as strong of a case, but in fewer words than you might like. It's part of the game. Plus, if both sides are equally limited, then it's fair.

There are other advantages, too. It makes it less likely that your opponent will forfeit, and it makes it more likely that people will vote.

+1

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."
- Mark Twain

Succinct is an art.
Peyton Manning sings a song
The world remembers.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:04:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation <u>presuming that every reader is a blank slate</u> will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

Just a nitpick, there is no such thing as a person judging from a blank slate.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:06:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 4:04:39 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation <u>presuming that every reader is a blank slate</u> will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

Just a nitpick, there is no such thing as a person judging from a blank slate.

"Blank slate" refers to "lack of outside knowledge on the topic at hand," and even if such a person doesn't exist, the debater must construct arguments in such a way that this illusory person would understand.
"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
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:38:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 4:06:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/10/2016 4:04:39 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation <u>presuming that every reader is a blank slate</u> will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

Just a nitpick, there is no such thing as a person judging from a blank slate.

"Blank slate" refers to "lack of outside knowledge on the topic at hand," and even if such a person doesn't exist, the debater must construct arguments in such a way that this illusory person would understand.

But this illusory person is not the one voting on your debate.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.
:) nac
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 2:49:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

I think you are mistaken, both debaters have the same amount of length/character space per round. If the round length for the debate is set to 4,000 characters only, then both debaters participating in that debate are restricted to that limit.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
U.n
Posts: 214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:48:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I come from a website where you got 3 rounds, 1200 characters max, 24 hours per argument. With no option to changes those rules.

IMO it taught people to make the most of their character space: focus on the important issues, write as concise as possible, remove the fluff.

And it made things a lot easier on the voters. Just because you're willing to write five 10,000 character arguments that doesn't mean voters want to read it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 5:44:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

Not addressed by any? Did you even look at the debate I linked?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 11:14:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 4:38:39 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 4:06:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/10/2016 4:04:39 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation <u>presuming that every reader is a blank slate</u> will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

Just a nitpick, there is no such thing as a person judging from a blank slate.

"Blank slate" refers to "lack of outside knowledge on the topic at hand," and even if such a person doesn't exist, the debater must construct arguments in such a way that this illusory person would understand.

But this illusory person is not the one voting on your debate.

Of course -- but debaters should pretend like the illusory person is the reader. It's critical for debaters to explain their arguments like that.
"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
2/11/2016 3:07:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:51:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of my favorite debates that helps demonstrate that, most of the time, you have enough characters to debate (some topics MIGHT be an exception).
http://www.debate.org...

Haha, I was immediately reminded of the same debate when I read the OP.
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...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 4:02:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:07:19 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:51:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of my favorite debates that helps demonstrate that, most of the time, you have enough characters to debate (some topics MIGHT be an exception).
http://www.debate.org...

Haha, I was immediately reminded of the same debate when I read the OP.

Very few debates require more space.
My attempted Midrash debate is one (as I was required to talk about damn near every verse in Mark just in the first round, not even getting to Matthew or Luke), but that was my own fault for setting the debate up the way I did.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:17:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 2:49:41 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

I think you are mistaken, both debaters have the same amount of length/character space per round. If the round length for the debate is set to 4,000 characters only, then both debaters participating in that debate are restricted to that limit.

You have misrepresented my argument; I never based my argument on there being different character limits for different sides of debates, as of course there aren't. Instead, I argued that character limits were unfair because they made it harder to argue for an unconventional point of view (e.g. that abortions are good because murder is morally justifiable) since arguments for unconventional points of view require more explanation for arguments for conventional points of view, as a debater needs to overturn prevailing beliefs about the world.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:18:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 5:44:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

Not addressed by any? Did you even look at the debate I linked?

How does that debate refute the point that I was referring to above?

First of all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits also make it more difficult for a debater to elaborate on his arguments. This makes it more difficult to argue for an unpopular position for the sake of fun: if one were to make the argument that abortion is good because murder is good, rather than that abortion is morally justifiable because it isn't murder, and one wasn't able to elaborate on his points well, one's argument would look more like an inflammatory troll post than a sincere attempt at playing devil's advocate because all of the justifications for and reasoning behind the argument would have had to be cut down or removed entirely to fit the argument in the round's character limit. Taking on unpopular positions and playing devil's advocate is an important part of debate, and making it harder through a round limit would therefore ruin debate for many people.
:) nac
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:31:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:18:37 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 5:44:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

Not addressed by any? Did you even look at the debate I linked?

How does that debate refute the point that I was referring to above?

Well, both sides are given the same characters to debate unless a rule is put in place (like the linked debate) that limits one side.
The debate showed that you don't need that many characters to actually make a good round, even if you are using A LOT less characters than your opponent.

This makes it so there is no real excuse as to not being able to debate, and makes it so neither side really has an advantage over the other.

First of all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits also make it more difficult for a debater to elaborate on his arguments. This makes it more difficult to argue for an unpopular position for the sake of fun: if one were to make the argument that abortion is good because murder is good, rather than that abortion is morally justifiable because it isn't murder, and one wasn't able to elaborate on his points well, one's argument would look more like an inflammatory troll post than a sincere attempt at playing devil's advocate because all of the justifications for and reasoning behind the argument would have had to be cut down or removed entirely to fit the argument in the round's character limit. Taking on unpopular positions and playing devil's advocate is an important part of debate, and making it harder through a round limit would therefore ruin debate for many people.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:50:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:31:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:18:37 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 5:44:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

Not addressed by any? Did you even look at the debate I linked?

How does that debate refute the point that I was referring to above?

Well, both sides are given the same characters to debate unless a rule is put in place (like the linked debate) that limits one side.
The debate showed that you don't need that many characters to actually make a good round, even if you are using A LOT less characters than your opponent.

This makes it so there is no real excuse as to not being able to debate, and makes it so neither side really has an advantage over the other.

First of all, by reducing how much one could write, character limits also make it more difficult for a debater to elaborate on his arguments. This makes it more difficult to argue for an unpopular position for the sake of fun: if one were to make the argument that abortion is good because murder is good, rather than that abortion is morally justifiable because it isn't murder, and one wasn't able to elaborate on his points well, one's argument would look more like an inflammatory troll post than a sincere attempt at playing devil's advocate because all of the justifications for and reasoning behind the argument would have had to be cut down or removed entirely to fit the argument in the round's character limit. Taking on unpopular positions and playing devil's advocate is an important part of debate, and making it harder through a round limit would therefore ruin debate for many people.

You didn't address my point at all. Read the quoted part above. How was the debate linked to about an unpopular vs a popular position?
:) nac
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 6:23:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:17:35 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 2:49:41 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

I think you are mistaken, both debaters have the same amount of length/character space per round. If the round length for the debate is set to 4,000 characters only, then both debaters participating in that debate are restricted to that limit.

You have misrepresented my argument; I never based my argument on there being different character limits for different sides of debates, as of course there aren't. Instead, I argued that character limits were unfair because they made it harder to argue for an unconventional point of view (e.g. that abortions are good because murder is morally justifiable) since arguments for unconventional points of view require more explanation for arguments for conventional points of view, as a debater needs to overturn prevailing beliefs about the world.

My bad, I didn't even know you had previously brought it up or that it was an argument.

In this case - yeah, it would be harder to argue in support of unpopular views while under a short character limit. But how is that unfair? Oxford Dictionary defines unfair as: "Not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice". Yet, whoever is arguing for the unpopular side already accepted the shortened character space limit when they accepted the debate. They are actively accepting that challenge and go into it knowing full well that they are arguing for an unpopular side with a character space limit.

So it's not unfair, obviously. Since no-one is forcing them into a unjust or unequal situation - it's by their own accord. Thus, rather than being unfair, It's just that it's more of a challenge for them.

Now, if you think super challenging things are unfair - that's a personal problem, not one that is an objective statement or accurate by any objective standard.

We could also go deeper so that I can argue how the very concept of "fairness" in regards to debate is impossible. We can try to be as fair as possible but - unless you are debating yourself - your opponent will always be either better or worse than you, more or less knowledgeable on the subject than you, more or less experienced in debating as you, etc,. Hence, there is no such thing as fairness in debates, only a common courtesy between two willful participants agreeing to a set of rules that keep the debate civil and organized in as fair a way as possible (such as ensuring that both sides have equal amount of character space).

Thus, your argument is inherently flawed as there is no such thing as absolute fairness in the debate world, hence no way for it to be unfair in the context you provide under which both participants willfully agreed to the debate and rules within it.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 4:16:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 6:23:20 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:17:35 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 2:49:41 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

I think you are mistaken, both debaters have the same amount of length/character space per round. If the round length for the debate is set to 4,000 characters only, then both debaters participating in that debate are restricted to that limit.

You have misrepresented my argument; I never based my argument on there being different character limits for different sides of debates, as of course there aren't. Instead, I argued that character limits were unfair because they made it harder to argue for an unconventional point of view (e.g. that abortions are good because murder is morally justifiable) since arguments for unconventional points of view require more explanation for arguments for conventional points of view, as a debater needs to overturn prevailing beliefs about the world.

My bad, I didn't even know you had previously brought it up or that it was an argument.

In this case - yeah, it would be harder to argue in support of unpopular views while under a short character limit. But how is that unfair? Oxford Dictionary defines unfair as: "Not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice". Yet, whoever is arguing for the unpopular side already accepted the shortened character space limit when they accepted the debate. They are actively accepting that challenge and go into it knowing full well that they are arguing for an unpopular side with a character space limit.

So it's not unfair, obviously. Since no-one is forcing them into a unjust or unequal situation - it's by their own accord. Thus, rather than being unfair, It's just that it's more of a challenge for them.

Now, if you think super challenging things are unfair - that's a personal problem, not one that is an objective statement or accurate by any objective standard.

We could also go deeper so that I can argue how the very concept of "fairness" in regards to debate is impossible. We can try to be as fair as possible but - unless you are debating yourself - your opponent will always be either better or worse than you, more or less knowledgeable on the subject than you, more or less experienced in debating as you, etc,. Hence, there is no such thing as fairness in debates, only a common courtesy between two willful participants agreeing to a set of rules that keep the debate civil and organized in as fair a way as possible (such as ensuring that both sides have equal amount of character space).

Thus, your argument is inherently flawed as there is no such thing as absolute fairness in the debate world, hence no way for it to be unfair in the context you provide under which both participants willfully agreed to the debate and rules within it.

You stated that the lack of fairness caused by short round lengths was not problematic, as both debaters agreed to the rules of the debate beforehand and therefore the debater arguing for the unpopular side must be seeking a challenge. This fails to take into consideration the fact that the debater arguing for the unpopular side might not know how much space his arguments would take up before the debate begins, and therefore he might end up accepting a debate thinking that it is easier than it actually is, making your argument about consent invalid.
:) nac
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 5:50:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 4:16:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 6:23:20 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:17:35 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 2:49:41 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:15:01 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:53:28 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:26:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I felt the same way when I first joined the site. Frequent usage of the site taught me that concision is critical to rhetoric. If you want to push forward a point, doing it succinctly only helps you. Character restrictions on the site help one attempt to shorten one's arguments and explain things in a clear and concise way. Explanation presuming that every reader is a blank slate will help one in most aspects of life. Debating is a life skill, and concision is an important part of that.

My sentiments exactly. Since joining the site I've purposely participated in 1,000 - 4,000 character limit debates solely for the challenge of presenting arguments in as concise of a manner as possible. It's an incredibly fun challenge having to go back and pinpoint exactly what the core of the arguments are while deleting any extra material to meet the space restrictions. An enlightening experience which refines a debater from a coal to a diamond via the application of pressure.

Except short round lengths, as stated earlier, make it harder for one side to debate than the other. This has not been addressed by any of the posts above.

I think you are mistaken, both debaters have the same amount of length/character space per round. If the round length for the debate is set to 4,000 characters only, then both debaters participating in that debate are restricted to that limit.

You have misrepresented my argument; I never based my argument on there being different character limits for different sides of debates, as of course there aren't. Instead, I argued that character limits were unfair because they made it harder to argue for an unconventional point of view (e.g. that abortions are good because murder is morally justifiable) since arguments for unconventional points of view require more explanation for arguments for conventional points of view, as a debater needs to overturn prevailing beliefs about the world.

My bad, I didn't even know you had previously brought it up or that it was an argument.

In this case - yeah, it would be harder to argue in support of unpopular views while under a short character limit. But how is that unfair? Oxford Dictionary defines unfair as: "Not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice". Yet, whoever is arguing for the unpopular side already accepted the shortened character space limit when they accepted the debate. They are actively accepting that challenge and go into it knowing full well that they are arguing for an unpopular side with a character space limit.

So it's not unfair, obviously. Since no-one is forcing them into a unjust or unequal situation - it's by their own accord. Thus, rather than being unfair, It's just that it's more of a challenge for them.

Now, if you think super challenging things are unfair - that's a personal problem, not one that is an objective statement or accurate by any objective standard.

We could also go deeper so that I can argue how the very concept of "fairness" in regards to debate is impossible. We can try to be as fair as possible but - unless you are debating yourself - your opponent will always be either better or worse than you, more or less knowledgeable on the subject than you, more or less experienced in debating as you, etc,. Hence, there is no such thing as fairness in debates, only a common courtesy between two willful participants agreeing to a set of rules that keep the debate civil and organized in as fair a way as possible (such as ensuring that both sides have equal amount of character space).

Thus, your argument is inherently flawed as there is no such thing as absolute fairness in the debate world, hence no way for it to be unfair in the context you provide under which both participants willfully agreed to the debate and rules within it.

You stated that the lack of fairness caused by short round lengths was not problematic, as both debaters agreed to the rules of the debate beforehand and therefore the debater arguing for the unpopular side must be seeking a challenge. This fails to take into consideration the fact that the debater arguing for the unpopular side might not know how much space his arguments would take up before the debate begins, and therefore he might end up accepting a debate thinking that it is easier than it actually is, making your argument about consent invalid.

If he went into a debate unprepared that's, again, a personal problem - and in no way an objectively unfair situation since he still willfully agreed to participate in the debate by his own accord.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...