Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

RFD for homework debate

tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 2:18:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I. Debate: http://www.debate.org...

II. Resolution: "Homework should not be required."

III. Procedural Matters:

a. Burdens

The resolution is a normative one, since it concerns whether homework "should" be required which is a normative question. The burdens of persuasion are generally equal on both sides when it comes to normative questions, because there's no rational basis to place the burden on either side - at least, that's the judging paradigm which I follow. I understand that certain judging paradigms place allusions to the "status quo" or the side that instigates the debate for "making a claim," in my view neither of these is valid because (1) the status quo is not self-justifying, nor is the negation of a normative claim self-justifying, so the burdens are equal for fairness, and (2) in this specific instance, there is no status quo of "requirement" since it differs from school to school globally.

Con does bring up an argument with regard to the burdens of persuasion, stating that it lies entirely on Pro since Pro is "deviating from the status quo." But Con fails to explain (1) how Pro is deviating from the status quo, due to the sheer vagueness of that term when it comes to such a broad resolution as this (in some schools, homework is *not* required, so in some aspects Pro is defending the status quo as well) and (2) how the status quo is sufficient reason to shift the burden (there are actually arguments to be made about this; none of those are seen). So I presume equal burdens (no burdens are truly "equal," but both sides are obliged to present offensive arguments affirming or negating the resolution).

As such, Pro's burden of persuasion is to show that homework should not be required, while Con's burden of persuasion is to show that homework *should* be required. The lens by which the debate is being judged is overall benefit to society, the students, teachers and parents.

b. Terms

I will be using standard definitions of the terms. "Homework" refers to "schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home," and "required" means "officially compulsory."

IV. Offense

Pro's case consists of four claims: (1) that "homework does not fuel academic success" since understanding cannot be "reinforced" like behavior can, and lack of correlation with academic achievement (a defensive argument on the notion that homework is "unnecessary" which Con can disprove as offense); (2) homework "inhibits family time" and "burdens parents" (it is stressful for parents and children due to the responsibility it gives parents, and has caused family conflict and legal problems; permanently damages relationships with children); (3) homework infringes on playtime and leisure, and functionally detaches children from schoolwork because of growing hatred of it; and (4) homework poses an emotional/psychological harm to pupils (causes "lack of sleep, of self-esteem, of cheer," "extinguishes the flame of curiosity," "encourages cheating," "punishes low-income students [due to lack of resources]" and doing work at school with teacher involvement is more beneficial).

Con offers a counterplan, while offering no reason to prefer the "counterplan" (actually a "model" since there's no clear indication of what the "status quo" is) to Pro's case. Con merely says Pro has the burden of "proof" (read: burden of persuasion) saying Pro is defending the status quo (lacking explanation as to *why* this is the case, and not explaining how this is the status quo). The counterplan is a positive advocacy in itself, so even assuming Pro had the burden initially, Con creates a burden of persuasion for himself by offering a counterplan -- failing to defend the benefits against Pro's plan (the P2, "homework in moderate quantity is positive," is not affirmed).

V. Clash/Analysis

Con has no case, so to that extent there is no substantive clash with regard to Con's case. The primary point of clash/rebuttal in this debate is Pro's case. The clash around Con's CP is, as Con correctly notes, mostly tangential due to Pro's misinterpretation of what the counterplan actually entails (though premise #2 talks about quality).

(1) Academic success and homework

Con's response to the first point of Pro's case (which is a defensive point, and not one Pro hinges on to win the debate - seeing as the other impacts still exists, and I can't presume that Con is correct since the first point is a negative claim, not an affirmative one) is two-fold: (a) the study is severely outdated, so can't be trusted to accurately represent what the status quo is, and (b) the sample size of the study is particularly small, so can't be trusted either. Pro refutes the first point showing that homework levels have generally been the same for a while - and I agree that research from 8 years ago is recent enough. Pro's defense of con-homework studies with respect to sample size isn't sufficient, but Pro is correct that "homework is beneficial" contains as much of a burden -- if not more -- than "homework is useless" seeing as it is a defensive point, and pro-homework studies, per Pro, contain similar sample size. Con more or less drops the point about burdens, and I'm not going into further detail since this point is defensive, and there is sufficient uncertainty from both sides.

(2) Burden to parents + family time

Con mitigates this and adds uncertainty to this with regard to the point about parents complaining about homework by showing that some parents *want* homework, which is reasonably compelling against Pro's argument from examples. But there's one glaring flaw in this: the resolution uses the word "required," which means Con has to show that homework has to be *compulsory* for all students. So insofar as only some students want homework, it doesn't meaningfully negate the resolution, while Pro's argument -- although mitigated -- stands as a sufficient harm to imposing homework on *all* students. Pro correctly notes: "All this proves is that the parents who want homework should be able to give their kids homework, whereas those who don't shouldn't have to," which negates this point. The CP doesn't solve: it only mitigates, as Pro notes, so the impact stands to a certain extent. In fact, Con concedes: "In this contention I proved that the burden on parents is of an extremely low percentage." But in a debate where Con lacks offense, mitigation isn't sufficient: even this tiny part of Pro's offense is sufficient for victory.

(3) Leisure

Con shows that minimized homework does not significantly infringe on leisure (if at all), since the majority -- if not all -- of pupils manage leisure and extra-curricular activities despite the presence of homework. Pro counters with three sources showing that homework inhibits rest, which is only persuasive to a small extent, since the impact is significantly mitigated, if not eliminated, by the CP. I'm lacking sufficient impact analysis from either side on this, so there isn't much offense left.

(4) Harms to students

This is easily Pro's strongest, and most meaningful, impact. Con's sole response to this is with regard to certain tangential points (e.g. cheating) which really don't hit the major impacts of socioeconomic discrimination/advantages, and benefits of doing all work with teacher involvement. Con says homework "counts for nothing" and says the CP would solve homework counting for anything, which leaves a question: why provide homework if students aren't forced to do it? Lacking them being forced to do it, Con essentially concedes to Pro's model.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework. Lacking any benefits to the CP or allowing homework, those mitigated impacts are sufficient to vote Pro. Pro wins that (1) homework poses harms to students, and that (2) it poses a burden on parents. Con drops Pro's strong point of socioeconomic injustice (which Pro should have expanded on, though) and overall, Pro fulfills her burden of persuasion, while Con fails to do it. Thus, Pro wins.

Comments:

Structure your arguments clearly, and stay away from irrelevant stuff. Claim, warrant, impact. That's all matters.

Even if the burden is on a certain side, in a normative resolution, it's useful to present offense because then mitigated impacts can be weighed against positives to your side and can still grant you the win. Because Con literally didn't have *any* meaningful offense left, Pro's mitigated impacts were sufficient to grant her the win.

Con's sentences/paragraphs have too much spacing between them, and that hurts readability. Do this: when C/Ping from Word or Google Docs, first paste the argument into "plain text," and *then* convert it into "Rich Text" and format it. It allows for discrete paragraphs without hurting readability, and maintains a font that isn't too small (not that I have a problem with the font; other judges might, though).

Good work from both of you, overall, though. I'd also like to applaud famousdebater for managing to hold his own against a debater of Danielle's caliber.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 3:34:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 2:18:57 PM, tejretics wrote:
Burdens

Pro conceded the burdens. You are making arguments that weren't made in the debate. I argued that Pro had the BOP. She never contested this point at all. If both sides agree to the burdens then surely the burdens should not then be distorted due to the voters interpretation.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 3:56:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 3:34:34 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:18:57 PM, tejretics wrote:
Burdens

Pro conceded the burdens. You are making arguments that weren't made in the debate. I argued that Pro had the BOP. She never contested this point at all. If both sides agree to the burdens then surely the burdens should not then be distorted due to the voters interpretation.

1. Burdens are irrelevant to my decision; even if Pro had the burden of persuasion, she clearly won for reasons already articulated.

2. If it were any other argument, I would give you the benefit of the doubt due to a dropped argument (even if under-explained). But burdens are contingent on judging paradigm, and I need very persuasive arguments to place the burden on one side in a normative resolution to do that -- under-explained burdens-related arguments, like this one, are unfair to one debater regardless of whether they contested it, so I assume equal burdens.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:04:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 3:56:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
If it were any other argument, I would give you the benefit of the doubt due to a dropped argument (even if under-explained). But burdens are contingent on judging paradigm, and I need very persuasive arguments to place the burden on one side in a normative resolution to do that -- under-explained burdens-related arguments, like this one, are unfair to one debater regardless of whether they contested it, so I assume equal burdens.

But the burdens were *conceded*. If I make the point that the BOP is shared since Danielle proposes a change in the status quo and Danielle agrees then the judge doesn't have to authority to say that both sides are wrong and make a new argument that the BOP should have been shared. If this was never argued in the debate and was agreed upon by both voters then surely it isn't right for the voter to then take up their own interpretation of the burdens without taking into account what was clearly stated in the debate in regards to the burdens.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:07:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:04:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:

Like I said, that only applies, in my opinion, to the *arguments* of the debate. With regard to procedural stuff, I don't see a problem with judging by a BOP separate from the one argued in the debate--because your argument to that regard didn't make sense. Under-explained *arguments*--when conceded--I weigh, but to a significantly lesser extent. Under-explained resolutional analysis, I don't weigh.

And, also, this is irrelevant to the substance of my RFD--even if the burden were on Pro, she won.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:21:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:07:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:04:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:

Like I said, that only applies, in my opinion, to the *arguments* of the debate. With regard to procedural stuff, I don't see a problem with judging by a BOP separate from the one argued in the debate--because your argument to that regard didn't make sense. Under-explained *arguments*--when conceded--I weigh, but to a significantly lesser extent. Under-explained resolutional analysis, I don't weigh.

If an argument is conceded you should weigh it in the side making the argument's favor. Sure, the argument may have been under-explained in your opinion but that doesn't give voters the right to make a completely new argument that wasn't made by either sides in the debate. Like you say yourself: "when conceded--I weigh, but to a significantly lesser extent," in this scenario you merely said that it was under-explained and then made your own interpretations of the burdens that weren't even argued in the debate.

And, also, this is irrelevant to the substance of my RFD--even if the burden were on Pro, she won.

I know. Just because it won't change your view on it, doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore parts of the RFD that I think you've weighed / interpreted incorrectly.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:24:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:21:11 PM, famousdebater wrote:
If an argument is conceded you should weigh it in the side making the argument's favor. Sure, the argument may have been under-explained in your opinion but that doesn't give voters the right to make a completely new argument that wasn't made by either sides in the debate. Like you say yourself: "when conceded--I weigh, but to a significantly lesser extent," in this scenario you merely said that it was under-explained and then made your own interpretations of the burdens that weren't even argued in the debate.

My view is simple: the notion that a single "side" possesses the burden in a normative resolution is completely meaningless. If a person said "jsk hdj hj therefore vote Pro" in a debate and then says the argument was dropped, I wouldn't evaluate it. In this case, you entirely failed to explain how notions of the "status quo" had anything to with the burden, and more importantly, you didn't show that Pro was advocating a change in the status quo. Pro didn't address it, but completely bare assertions like that aren't stuff I'm going to evaluate. At least if it is an argument that links to the resolution, I will evaluate it less significantly (if at all), but here, your interp of the burdens was absurd and unjustified in this case, so I defaulted to my judging paradigm.
"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
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

Lacking any benefits to the CP or allowing homework, those mitigated impacts are sufficient to vote Pro. Pro wins that (1) homework poses harms to students, and that (2) it poses a burden on parents. Con drops Pro's strong point of socioeconomic injustice (which Pro should have expanded on, though) and overall, Pro fulfills her burden of persuasion, while Con fails to do it. Thus, Pro wins.

Comments:

Structure your arguments clearly, and stay away from irrelevant stuff. Claim, warrant, impact. That's all matters.

Even if the burden is on a certain side, in a normative resolution, it's useful to present offense because then mitigated impacts can be weighed against positives to your side and can still grant you the win. Because Con literally didn't have *any* meaningful offense left, Pro's mitigated impacts were sufficient to grant her the win.

Con's sentences/paragraphs have too much spacing between them, and that hurts readability. Do this: when C/Ping from Word or Google Docs, first paste the argument into "plain text," and *then* convert it into "Rich Text" and format it. It allows for discrete paragraphs without hurting readability, and maintains a font that isn't too small (not that I have a problem with the font; other judges might, though).

Good work from both of you, overall, though. I'd also like to applaud famousdebater for managing to hold his own against a debater of Danielle's caliber.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:39:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:24:00 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:21:11 PM, famousdebater wrote:
If an argument is conceded you should weigh it in the side making the argument's favor. Sure, the argument may have been under-explained in your opinion but that doesn't give voters the right to make a completely new argument that wasn't made by either sides in the debate. Like you say yourself: "when conceded--I weigh, but to a significantly lesser extent," in this scenario you merely said that it was under-explained and then made your own interpretations of the burdens that weren't even argued in the debate.

My view is simple: the notion that a single "side" possesses the burden in a normative resolution is completely meaningless. If a person said "jsk hdj hj therefore vote Pro" in a debate and then says the argument was dropped, I wouldn't evaluate it. In this case, you entirely failed to explain how notions of the "status quo" had anything to with the burden, and more importantly, you didn't show that Pro was advocating a change in the status quo. Pro didn't address it, but completely bare assertions like that aren't stuff I'm going to evaluate. At least if it is an argument that links to the resolution, I will evaluate it less significantly (if at all), but here, your interp of the burdens was absurd and unjustified in this case, so I defaulted to my judging paradigm.

Normative resolutions are not automatically debates where the BOP is shared. And my argument regarding burdens was self explanatory. If Pro is proposing a change in the status quo then logically speaking she has more to prove as she must prove that a different system should be used. If I am defending the current system there is less reason to show that it is good as it is already being used. As such, the BOP is on Pro. The argument is simple enough.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:39:02 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Normative resolutions are not automatically debates where the BOP is shared. And my argument regarding burdens was self explanatory. If Pro is proposing a change in the status quo then logically speaking she has more to prove as she must prove that a different system should be used. If I am defending the current system there is less reason to show that it is good as it is already being used. As such, the BOP is on Pro. The argument is simple enough.

1) I clearly explained how this is not the case, because "maintaining the status quo" is as much of an advocacy position as "deviating from the status quo."

2) You did NOT argue for the status quo--you argued a *counterplan,* which is a separate advocacy position.

3) You didn't even coherently explain what the "status quo" was--because "universally required homework" is not the status quo. There are schools that don't require homework.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:43:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

The BOP was equal, and I explained that at length above. But even if it was *not* equal, "he rebutted two arguments, so he . . . has to win" makes no sense whatsoever, because in that case, Danielle *wins* two separate reasons to affirm the resolution. The arguments aren't dependent on each other, so each provides a separate reason to affirm and vote Pro. So even if Danielle had the BOP, famous had to prove Danielle's *entire* case wrong -but if he provided benefits, he could have *weighed* those benefits against Danielle's case, so the two conceded arguments didn't turn against him to cause a Pro vote.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:46:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:41:31 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:39:02 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Normative resolutions are not automatically debates where the BOP is shared. And my argument regarding burdens was self explanatory. If Pro is proposing a change in the status quo then logically speaking she has more to prove as she must prove that a different system should be used. If I am defending the current system there is less reason to show that it is good as it is already being used. As such, the BOP is on Pro. The argument is simple enough.

1) I clearly explained how this is not the case, because "maintaining the status quo" is as much of an advocacy position as "deviating from the status quo."

That's illogical though. I'm not sure how you can have an equal amount to prove in both of those scenarios.

2) You did NOT argue for the status quo--you argued a *counterplan,* which is a separate advocacy position.

Yes. But that still gives me a smaller burden than Pro. My only burden is to justify the counterplan (which Pro also drops).

3) You didn't even coherently explain what the "status quo" was--because "universally required homework" is not the status quo. There are schools that don't require homework.

Again, this was never argued by Pro. You're making arguments for her. That's being an interventional judge.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:47:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:43:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

The BOP was equal, and I explained that at length above. But even if it was *not* equal, "he rebutted two arguments, so he . . . has to win" makes no sense whatsoever, because in that case, Danielle *wins* two separate reasons to affirm the resolution. The arguments aren't dependent on each other, so each provides a separate reason to affirm and vote Pro. So even if Danielle had the BOP, famous had to prove Danielle's *entire* case wrong -but if he provided benefits, he could have *weighed* those benefits against Danielle's case, so the two conceded arguments didn't turn against him to cause a Pro vote.

2 out of 2, and Con has a less burden, so he has to win.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:48:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:46:02 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:41:31 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:39:02 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Normative resolutions are not automatically debates where the BOP is shared. And my argument regarding burdens was self explanatory. If Pro is proposing a change in the status quo then logically speaking she has more to prove as she must prove that a different system should be used. If I am defending the current system there is less reason to show that it is good as it is already being used. As such, the BOP is on Pro. The argument is simple enough.

1) I clearly explained how this is not the case, because "maintaining the status quo" is as much of an advocacy position as "deviating from the status quo."

That's illogical though. I'm not sure how you can have an equal amount to prove in both of those scenarios.

You haven't proven this. The status quo doesn't somehow justify itself.

2) You did NOT argue for the status quo--you argued a *counterplan,* which is a separate advocacy position.

Yes. But that still gives me a smaller burden than Pro. My only burden is to justify the counterplan (which Pro also drops).

The counterplan is as much as an advocacy position as Pro's position- so the burden to justify it is equal.

3) You didn't even coherently explain what the "status quo" was--because "universally required homework" is not the status quo. There are schools that don't require homework.

Again, this was never argued by Pro. You're making arguments for her. That's being an interventional judge.

This isn't an "argument."

"Fancy wancy wancy so vote Pro," even if dropped, isn't an argument that's going to be evaluated.

Obviously this is better explained than that, but I already explained how your position is mostly meaningless -too much so to deviate from the paradigm.

Meh, you may be right about this. I don't know. I hold to my position for now, for reasons described above. But really, this discussion is going nowhere, because Danielle won even if she had the BOP.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:47:29 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:43:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

The BOP was equal, and I explained that at length above. But even if it was *not* equal, "he rebutted two arguments, so he . . . has to win" makes no sense whatsoever, because in that case, Danielle *wins* two separate reasons to affirm the resolution. The arguments aren't dependent on each other, so each provides a separate reason to affirm and vote Pro. So even if Danielle had the BOP, famous had to prove Danielle's *entire* case wrong -but if he provided benefits, he could have *weighed* those benefits against Danielle's case, so the two conceded arguments didn't turn against him to cause a Pro vote.

2 out of 2, and Con has a less burden, so he has to win.

He refuted two out of *four.* That's why he lost.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:51:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:43:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

The BOP was equal, and I explained that at length above. But even if it was *not* equal, "he rebutted two arguments, so he . . . has to win" makes no sense whatsoever, because in that case, Danielle *wins* two separate reasons to affirm the resolution. The arguments aren't dependent on each other, so each provides a separate reason to affirm and vote Pro. So even if Danielle had the BOP, famous had to prove Danielle's *entire* case wrong -but if he provided benefits, he could have *weighed* those benefits against Danielle's case, so the two conceded arguments didn't turn against him to cause a Pro vote.

Actually it depends on the weight to which the arguments were considered. If Fire found one argument to bare extremely greater weight than the other 3 then he is justified in voting based on that argument.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:59:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:48:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:46:02 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:41:31 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:39:02 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Normative resolutions are not automatically debates where the BOP is shared. And my argument regarding burdens was self explanatory. If Pro is proposing a change in the status quo then logically speaking she has more to prove as she must prove that a different system should be used. If I am defending the current system there is less reason to show that it is good as it is already being used. As such, the BOP is on Pro. The argument is simple enough.

1) I clearly explained how this is not the case, because "maintaining the status quo" is as much of an advocacy position as "deviating from the status quo."

That's illogical though. I'm not sure how you can have an equal amount to prove in both of those scenarios.

You haven't proven this. The status quo doesn't somehow justify itself.

True. Though to propose such a large change in the system would require a lot more to prove than to keep the system the same. Logically if you want change to occur in the system you have to prove that it is better than the status quo. If you want to keep the status quo you don't have to prove that it's better than any other system. Merely that it's better than an alternative (in this case the alternative was Danielle's advocacy of no homework).

2) You did NOT argue for the status quo--you argued a *counterplan,* which is a separate advocacy position.

Yes. But that still gives me a smaller burden than Pro. My only burden is to justify the counterplan (which Pro also drops).

The counterplan is as much as an advocacy position as Pro's position- so the burden to justify it is equal.

But less homework is only applicable in some scenarios and it is less of a change than making the status quo the opposite of what it currently is. And all of this is irrelevant since Danielle conceded the counter plan meaning that I don't have to justify it any more than I did in the debate.

3) You didn't even coherently explain what the "status quo" was--because "universally required homework" is not the status quo. There are schools that don't require homework.

Again, this was never argued by Pro. You're making arguments for her. That's being an interventional judge.

This isn't an "argument."

"Fancy wancy wancy so vote Pro," even if dropped, isn't an argument that's going to be evaluated.

Obviously this is better explained than that, but I already explained how your position is mostly meaningless -too much so to deviate from the paradigm.

Even if somebody made the vote: "Fancy wancy wancy so vote Pro," that doesn't allow you to as a voter to say: "this argument isn't compelling, so I'm going to make my own argument in it's place." That is equally unjustified.

Meh, you may be right about this. I don't know. I hold to my position for now, for reasons described above. But really, this discussion is going nowhere, because Danielle won even if she had the BOP.

Fair enough.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 5:29:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:48:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:47:29 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:43:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

The BOP was equal, and I explained that at length above. But even if it was *not* equal, "he rebutted two arguments, so he . . . has to win" makes no sense whatsoever, because in that case, Danielle *wins* two separate reasons to affirm the resolution. The arguments aren't dependent on each other, so each provides a separate reason to affirm and vote Pro. So even if Danielle had the BOP, famous had to prove Danielle's *entire* case wrong -but if he provided benefits, he could have *weighed* those benefits against Danielle's case, so the two conceded arguments didn't turn against him to cause a Pro vote.

2 out of 2, and Con has a less burden, so he has to win.

He refuted two out of *four.* That's why he lost.

If burden of proof is on Pro, which it is, then if he refuted 2 out of 4, he has to win.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 10:49:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:59:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Even if somebody made the vote: "Fancy wancy wancy so vote Pro," that doesn't allow you to as a voter to say: "this argument isn't compelling, so I'm going to make my own argument in it's place." That is equally unjustified.

No, but what *is* justified is saying "this argument makes no sense, so I'm not considering it, though dropped." Your arguments, similarly, made no sense, so I'm not considering them. I *default* to a shared BOP in normative resolutions -- because BOP is a resolutional-analysis issue, not an argument issue.

But yeah, let's end this.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 10:51:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 5:29:20 PM, fire_wings wrote:
If burden of proof is on Pro, which it is, then if he refuted 2 out of 4, he has to win.

This is utter garbage, and is why you tend to be a bad voter.

If Pro has the BOP, even *one* unrefuted argument is sufficient to win, because Pro's BOP is to affirm that "homework should not be required." You grossly mistate the burden. The "burden of proof/persuasion" is the obligation on a side to advance offense or persuade the judge. The meaning of "BOP is on Pro" is (1) Pro has an obligation to provide one or more arguments to affirm the resolution, and (2) Con has an obligation to refute *all* arguments Pro makes.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 10:53:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
tl;dr of my response to fire:

1) Famous's arguments to keep the burden of persuasion on Danielle were uncompelling because (a) the status quo needs justification *as much* as making a change to the status quo, because "maintaining the status quo" is an advocacy position, (b) famous made a counterplan, which is a positive advocacy position and needs to be justified, and (c) since famous's arguments were incoherent, I default to a shared BOP even though Danielle dropped the issue.

2) Even if Danielle had the BOP, she had two offensive arguments standing, which is sufficient to vote for her.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 2:40:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 5:29:20 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:48:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:47:29 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:43:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:38:44 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:19:05 PM, tejretics wrote:
VI. Outcome

Con only mitigates points 2 and 4 of Pro's case, and doesn't prove any benefits to homework.

BoP was not on Con, so he doesn't need to have benefits to prove, just rebuttals of Pro's case. And, he rebutted 2 arguments, so he definitely has to win.

The BOP was equal, and I explained that at length above. But even if it was *not* equal, "he rebutted two arguments, so he . . . has to win" makes no sense whatsoever, because in that case, Danielle *wins* two separate reasons to affirm the resolution. The arguments aren't dependent on each other, so each provides a separate reason to affirm and vote Pro. So even if Danielle had the BOP, famous had to prove Danielle's *entire* case wrong -but if he provided benefits, he could have *weighed* those benefits against Danielle's case, so the two conceded arguments didn't turn against him to cause a Pro vote.

2 out of 2, and Con has a less burden, so he has to win.

He refuted two out of *four.* That's why he lost.

If burden of proof is on Pro, which it is, then if he refuted 2 out of 4, he has to win.

That defends on the weight of those arguments. If you found those arguments to be important then that argument is sufficient.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:25:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 2:40:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
That defends on the weight of those arguments. If you found those arguments to be important then that argument is sufficient.

This is actually wrong.

Even if the weight of the argument is very little, insofar as the argument has *some* however small impact, Danielle would win because you didn't make any offensive arguments.
"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
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:37:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:25:43 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:40:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
That defends on the weight of those arguments. If you found those arguments to be important then that argument is sufficient.

This is actually wrong.

Even if the weight of the argument is very little, insofar as the argument has *some* however small impact, Danielle would win because you didn't make any offensive arguments.

Not if he viewed the BOP as on Pro (which he did). If Pro had the BOP then I have no obligation to defend the status quo - merely negate my opponent's arguments, showing her system to be worse than the status quo. If one argument bares incredible weight and I refute it. Then even if you is affirming minor arguments fire wings is justified in voting Con given that Danielle has not managed to prove that the status quo should be changed to her proposed measures (since he following arguments are weak).
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:51:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:37:06 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Not if he viewed the BOP as on Pro (which he did). If Pro had the BOP then I have no obligation to defend the status quo - merely negate my opponent's arguments, showing her system to be worse than the status quo. If one argument bares incredible weight and I refute it. Then even if you is affirming minor arguments fire wings is justified in voting Con given that Danielle has not managed to prove that the status quo should be changed to her proposed measures (since he following arguments are weak).

Wrong. Even if Danielle had the BOP, if the arguments had "0.000000001%" of weight, versus your "0%" of weight (i.e. no weight at all), impact analysis says Danielle wins. It's that simple.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:53:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:37:06 PM, famousdebater wrote:

To help you understand further, here's what the BOP is.

The BOP is the obligation to affirm or negate the resolution.

The resolution, in this case, was "homework should not be required." In that case, Danielle had to show that homework was net harmful, to whatever degree.

Impact analysis means whichever impact is smaller, I vote for the other side. Danielle had definite probability and very small magnitude. You had no impact whatsoever. That's why Danielle won, even if she had the BOP.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:53:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:37:06 PM, famousdebater wrote:

The only case in which "equal BOP" matters is in the event of a tie.
"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