Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

RFD: A Watched Pot never boils

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Pro: MagicAintReal
Con: Death23

This wasn't a particularly serious or research-intensive debate but it was one of the most fun debates that I've read and fully deserving of a thorough RFD. I was also impressed by how close it was and each round I read, I've found my opinion swaying back and forth.

Let's start with the definitions. I don't buy Pro's insistence in the slightest that this was not a "trap debate." It absolutely was. As Con pointed out, Pro used a common idiom as the resolution and within the context of that idiom, "pot" means the contents of a pot. While Pro did indeed define pot as the container, the vast majority of people would glaze over this definition because it doesn't draw their attention. If Pro wanted to genuinely debate this topic, he would have specifically made a note like "Pot refers to the container, not the contents of the container" so as to leave no ambiguity. However, it seems that Pro wanted that ambiguity to be there. (This is confirmed through the comments section where he suggested that someone who found the "loophole" should have PM'd him rather than post in the comments).

{{A little detour: Note that I don't usually read comments before voting but since the comments section was sourced and used as argumentative ground within the debate, that formed a part of my RFD.}}

Anyways, back on topic, Pro absolutely intended this to be a "trap" debate. The next decision then is to figure out whether this "trap" was abusive. There's not a lot of ground on Pro's side because Pro simply kept insisting that the debate wasn't a "trap" which was ridiculous and was what initially swayed me towards Con. What I didn't see from Con though is why Pro needs to be punished for making a "trap" debate. Con claims that the instigator took a "seemingly easy to disprove" resolution and sneaked in an unexpected definition. But Con should be expecting some sort of subterfuge when he saw that the resolution was seemingly easy to disprove. In fact, Con clearly stated in the comments that he knew what he was getting into. So, this theory attack fails to launch because Con never stated what the issue was with Pro doing what he did. Con acts as if it was self-evident that the mere act of creating "trap" resolutions is worthy of a loss of conduct. There are some arguments that can be made about this (like Zaradi's debates) but Con actually needs to make those arguments. So, I'm a little ambivalent here and I buy that Pro was springing a trap but due to Con not nailing down why this was a problem, I'm not weighing this higher than the actual debate (which was actually quite fun to read by the way).

Moving on to the actual debate, Pro's round one is just the basics of the boiling points of steel and iron. Con's refutation here is what swayed me towards his side at this point. I was impressed by Con springing his own trap on Pro and giving him a taste of his tactics back at him. Con is right that the heating element of the stove need not be the source of the heat. I though he nearly had it in the bag when he argued about torches/plasma cutters and the nuclear warfare example neatly closed out any loopholes and I was sure Pro couldn't come back from that.

But Pro's response was both brilliant and made me laugh several times. He covers all his bases by pointing out that the molten iron falls either in the pot and cools again or onto the stove and destroys the stove leading to nothing boiling on the destroyed stovetop. The part about the liquefied pot no longer being a pot since it wasn't cylindrical answers Con's last round argument as well. The best part though was when Pro wraps it up by pointing out that in the event of a nuclear bomb, the radiation would kill any human in the vicinity making it impossible to watch the pot while it boils - Con's arguments here played right into the other part of Pro's resolution (i.e. watching) and Pro neatly cleanes up the debate. By this point, I'd say that while Pro had poor arguments on the theory, he nailed it on the actual debate substance and I see no reason to not award Pro the win.

Now, moving onto the final arguments. A lot of the problems I had with Con's final arguments was that he made rebuttals that were never brought up before and straddled the line of "making new arguments in the last round when Pro couldn't respond." I'm a little conflicted as to how much to weigh these but I noticed that Con PASSED Round 3. Why pass the round and cram your arguments into your last round? Maybe, he didn't have time or was busy or had an emergency. But writing that takes all of 30 seconds. Instead, Con puts down a single word "pass" with no explanation. Considering the options, the only reasonable thing for me to do as a judge is assume the worst: that Con strategically passed the round because he wanted to save his arguments for when Pro couldn't respond. That leads me to reading the last round with a very skeptical eye and checking to see if Pro had already responded to any of the arguments previously.

Con's final argument is that metal vapors are formed. However, this doesn't fit Pro's definition of boiling which involves "bubbling" and if Pro had the chance, I'm sure he'd have pointed that out. Con then argues that the melted material will only cause localized damage on the stove and then cool, but it doesn't advance his argument that the pot boils and Pro had already covered this under his definition of boiling as "bubbling" and this doesn't fulfill that criteria. Con's final rebuttal is perhaps his strongest as he opens up the possibility that a small part of the blowtorched pot might boil before the stove is destroyed but this is again undercut by the fact that he only argues that the vapors have trace quantities of metal so it doesn't match Pro's boiling definition of the metal actually being liquid and bubbling and boiling.

So, overall Pro has this in the bag. This was a very fun and creatively worded resolution that took an amusing turn. Props to Pro for making me laugh today multiple times in both amusement and at his witticism. I thought Con initially had a good point, and his arguments about the blowtorch and nuclear warfare were out-of-the-box and fun to read. But they didn't hold up to Pro's very well-written rebuttal and Con came across as a bit of a curmudgeon complaining about conduct and the rules in a debate where he seemed very well-aware of exactly what was going to happen.

Not related to my decision but after reading through Zaradi's debate which Con talked about in the comments, I would have totally voted against Zaradi for accepting a debate and then bitching, and bitching, and bitching about how it was unfair but that's just my take. My advice: just don't. If you see a troll debate and want to have some fun, that's fine. But accepting an "unfair" looking debate only to bitch about how it's unfair is anathema to good debating and lively discussion. Anyways, that didn't affect my decision.

Nice job to both debaters.

VOTE PRO
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:08:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

However, this doesn't fit Pro's definition of boiling which involves "bubbling" and if Pro had the chance, I'm sure he'd have pointed that out. Con then argues that the melted material will only cause localized damage on the stove and then cool, but it doesn't advance his argument that the pot boils and Pro had already covered this under his definition of boiling as "bubbling" and this doesn't fulfill that criteria. Con's final rebuttal is perhaps his strongest as he opens up the possibility that a small part of the blowtorched pot might boil before the stove is destroyed but this is again undercut by the fact that he only argues that the vapors have trace quantities of metal so it doesn't match Pro's boiling definition of the metal actually being liquid and bubbling and boiling.

Pro never argued that no bubbles = no boiling. You're arguing it for him. The purpose of the vapors was merely to counter pro's assertion that only melting occurs.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:20:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:08:47 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

However, this doesn't fit Pro's definition of boiling which involves "bubbling" and if Pro had the chance, I'm sure he'd have pointed that out. Con then argues that the melted material will only cause localized damage on the stove and then cool, but it doesn't advance his argument that the pot boils and Pro had already covered this under his definition of boiling as "bubbling" and this doesn't fulfill that criteria. Con's final rebuttal is perhaps his strongest as he opens up the possibility that a small part of the blowtorched pot might boil before the stove is destroyed but this is again undercut by the fact that he only argues that the vapors have trace quantities of metal so it doesn't match Pro's boiling definition of the metal actually being liquid and bubbling and boiling.

Pro never argued that no bubbles = no boiling. You're arguing it for him. The purpose of the vapors was merely to counter pro's assertion that only melting occurs.

No, but he specified in Round one in his definition of boiling that it involves bubbling so you didn't meet his definition nor argue for an alternate definition. You also did this in the last round after skipping a previous round so I fact-checked your arguments against Pro's previous arguments to see whether anything he said already covered your arguments.

And you are correct that he didn't explicitly argue that boiling involves bubbling but he couldn't because you only brought this up in the final round. Why did you skip a round?
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:49:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:20:02 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:08:47 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

However, this doesn't fit Pro's definition of boiling which involves "bubbling" and if Pro had the chance, I'm sure he'd have pointed that out. Con then argues that the melted material will only cause localized damage on the stove and then cool, but it doesn't advance his argument that the pot boils and Pro had already covered this under his definition of boiling as "bubbling" and this doesn't fulfill that criteria. Con's final rebuttal is perhaps his strongest as he opens up the possibility that a small part of the blowtorched pot might boil before the stove is destroyed but this is again undercut by the fact that he only argues that the vapors have trace quantities of metal so it doesn't match Pro's boiling definition of the metal actually being liquid and bubbling and boiling.

Pro never argued that no bubbles = no boiling. You're arguing it for him. The purpose of the vapors was merely to counter pro's assertion that only melting occurs.

No, but he specified in Round one in his definition of boiling that it involves bubbling so you didn't meet his definition nor argue for an alternate definition. You also did this in the last round after skipping a previous round so I fact-checked your arguments against Pro's previous arguments to see whether anything he said already covered your arguments.

And you are correct that he didn't explicitly argue that boiling involves bubbling but he couldn't because you only brought this up in the final round. Why did you skip a round?

I skipped a round because I didn't want to go that many rounds with the guy, and the debate rules appeared permissive of this ("there are no round rules"). If he had argued that no bubbles = no vapor, then I would have responded to it. He could have argued it in round 3 or 4, but he didn't do it. He chose to argue that my examples didn't count as boiling for other reasons, and I responded to those reasons. The bubbles issue is a new reason that wasn't argued. This was the other voter's approach:

Idk. I'm not actually all that familiar with molten iron. Small bubbles maybe? You may be right, but you didn't raise this argument in the debate, so I didn't think of it for my vote.

That would be my approach as well. I wouldn't go through the definitions and look for criteria that weren't argued in the debate.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:00:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:49:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
I skipped a round because I didn't want to go that many rounds with the guy, and the debate rules appeared permissive of this ("there are no round rules"). If he had argued that no bubbles = no vapor, then I would have responded to it. He could have argued it in round 3 or 4, but he didn't do it. He chose to argue that my examples didn't count as boiling for other reasons, and I responded to those reasons. The bubbles issue is a new reason that wasn't argued. This was the other voter's approach:

You could have always skipped the last round if you so chose, and it would have been fairer as well. It seemed to me like you wanted to hold onto your arguments and have the last word.

He didn't argue the point about bubbles and vapor in his round three or his round four because you didn't even bring it up until your own round four. You should have argued your point in Round three and if he rebutted it in his round four, you could have responded to that rebuttal in your own round four.

You said that torches and nuclear weapons would cause the pot to boil. He refuted those points and showed that the torches would only melt, not boil and would destroy the stove, and the nukes would prevent people from watching. You then skipped a round and argued in the final round that trace amounts of metal is found in the vapors. But that doesn't meet the Round one definition of boiling so I can't give you points for that.

Idk. I'm not actually all that familiar with molten iron. Small bubbles maybe? You may be right, but you didn't raise this argument in the debate, so I didn't think of it for my vote.

That would be my approach as well. I wouldn't go through the definitions and look for criteria that weren't argued in the debate.

But your lack of contesting his definition on boiling means that that is the definition that I as the voter should go by. I can't make up my own definitions. The other voter didn't carefully read Round one. If he/she had, he/she would have known that Pro defined boiling, you accepted, and then didn't meet the criteria for boiling in your final round.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:12:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:00:13 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:49:22 AM, Death23 wrote:

But your lack of contesting his definition on boiling means that that is the definition that I as the voter should go by. I can't make up my own definitions. The other voter didn't carefully read Round one. If he/she had, he/she would have known that Pro defined boiling, you accepted, and then didn't meet the criteria for boiling in your final round.

Actually, I did read round 1. The definition is ambiguous. It says "the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor.". The temperature is the key element, and the definition is consistent with the formation of tiny bubbles that may not even be seen.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:22:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:12:32 AM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:00:13 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:49:22 AM, Death23 wrote:

But your lack of contesting his definition on boiling means that that is the definition that I as the voter should go by. I can't make up my own definitions. The other voter didn't carefully read Round one. If he/she had, he/she would have known that Pro defined boiling, you accepted, and then didn't meet the criteria for boiling in your final round.

Actually, I did read round 1. The definition is ambiguous. It says "the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor.". The temperature is the key element, and the definition is consistent with the formation of tiny bubbles that may not even be seen.

I would disagree with resolving the ambiguity in favor of Con who only brought up this argument in the last round when he could have argued it in the round he skipped.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:22:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:00:13 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:49:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
I skipped a round because I didn't want to go that many rounds with the guy, and the debate rules appeared permissive of this ("there are no round rules"). If he had argued that no bubbles = no vapor, then I would have responded to it. He could have argued it in round 3 or 4, but he didn't do it. He chose to argue that my examples didn't count as boiling for other reasons, and I responded to those reasons. The bubbles issue is a new reason that wasn't argued. This was the other voter's approach:

You could have always skipped the last round if you so chose, and it would have been fairer as well. It seemed to me like you wanted to hold onto your arguments and have the last word.

He didn't argue the point about bubbles and vapor in his round three or his round four because you didn't even bring it up until your own round four. You should have argued your point in Round three and if he rebutted it in his round four, you could have responded to that rebuttal in your own round four.

You said that torches and nuclear weapons would cause the pot to boil. He refuted those points and showed that the torches would only melt, not boil and would destroy the stove, and the nukes would prevent people from watching. You then skipped a round and argued in the final round that trace amounts of metal is found in the vapors. But that doesn't meet the Round one definition of boiling so I can't give you points for that.

Idk. I'm not actually all that familiar with molten iron. Small bubbles maybe? You may be right, but you didn't raise this argument in the debate, so I didn't think of it for my vote.

That would be my approach as well. I wouldn't go through the definitions and look for criteria that weren't argued in the debate.

But your lack of contesting his definition on boiling means that that is the definition that I as the voter should go by. I can't make up my own definitions. The other voter didn't carefully read Round one. If he/she had, he/she would have known that Pro defined boiling, you accepted, and then didn't meet the criteria for boiling in your final round.

Well, it's a situation where examples were held out as contradicting the resolution as a whole, but no arguments were made and no evidence was presented one way or the other as to that specific criterion. To side with Pro by default for non-argued criteria strikes me as a bit unfair, or perhaps the result of some burdens analysis. Though, the burden was on Pro, so I don't see how that would make sense.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:24:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Pro never argued that no bubbles = no boiling. You're arguing it for him. The purpose of the vapors was merely to counter pro's assertion that only melting occurs.

B to the S

From the 3rd round... BAM!

"1. Iron Melts Before It Boils.

If one were to add external heat from "an oxy-acetylene torch" or "plasma cutter" to the solid iron/steel of the pot, the SOLID iron/steel would have to melt first before it could begin bubbling; the SOLID iron must become a molten LIQUID first."
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:40:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:22:21 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:12:32 AM, Hoppi wrote:
At 3/30/2016 2:00:13 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:49:22 AM, Death23 wrote:

But your lack of contesting his definition on boiling means that that is the definition that I as the voter should go by. I can't make up my own definitions. The other voter didn't carefully read Round one. If he/she had, he/she would have known that Pro defined boiling, you accepted, and then didn't meet the criteria for boiling in your final round.

Actually, I did read round 1. The definition is ambiguous. It says "the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor.". The temperature is the key element, and the definition is consistent with the formation of tiny bubbles that may not even be seen.

I would disagree with resolving the ambiguity in favor of Con who only brought up this argument in the last round when he could have argued it in the round he skipped.

Yeah, but I think he brought it up in round 2 when he explained that the oxy-acetyline torches reached temperatures beyond the boiling point of iron. I thought that was consistent with the definition of boiling, but it was a close debate as you said.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:40:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not related to my decision but after reading through Zaradi's debate which Con talked about in the comments, I would have totally voted against Zaradi for accepting a debate and then bitching, and bitching, and bitching about how it was unfair but that's just my take. My advice: just don't. If you see a troll debate and want to have some fun, that's fine. But accepting an "unfair" looking debate only to bitch about how it's unfair is anathema to good debating and lively discussion. Anyways, that didn't affect my decision.

I disagree with this, because the only reason someone does that is to prevent others from accepting the debate and then losing due to the nonsense trap. But ideally, judges should just refrain from voting on such debates--that's what I usually do.
"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: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:42:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Regardless, in this case, I agree that Magicaintreal won, and agree with the majority of your reasoning.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:28:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:40:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not related to my decision but after reading through Zaradi's debate which Con talked about in the comments, I would have totally voted against Zaradi for accepting a debate and then bitching, and bitching, and bitching about how it was unfair but that's just my take. My advice: just don't. If you see a troll debate and want to have some fun, that's fine. But accepting an "unfair" looking debate only to bitch about how it's unfair is anathema to good debating and lively discussion. Anyways, that didn't affect my decision.

I disagree with this, because the only reason someone does that is to prevent others from accepting the debate and then losing due to the nonsense trap. But ideally, judges should just refrain from voting on such debates--that's what I usually do.

Are all traps nonsense? Not accepting the debate and posting in the comment section seems to me a better option than accepting and complaining about how it is unfair.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 12:00:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Are all traps nonsense? Not accepting the debate and posting in the comment section seems to me a better option than accepting and complaining about how it is unfair.

Word.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:04:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:28:12 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2016 1:40:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/30/2016 12:08:56 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not related to my decision but after reading through Zaradi's debate which Con talked about in the comments, I would have totally voted against Zaradi for accepting a debate and then bitching, and bitching, and bitching about how it was unfair but that's just my take. My advice: just don't. If you see a troll debate and want to have some fun, that's fine. But accepting an "unfair" looking debate only to bitch about how it's unfair is anathema to good debating and lively discussion. Anyways, that didn't affect my decision.

I disagree with this, because the only reason someone does that is to prevent others from accepting the debate and then losing due to the nonsense trap. But ideally, judges should just refrain from voting on such debates--that's what I usually do.

Are all traps nonsense? Not accepting the debate and posting in the comment section seems to me a better option than accepting and complaining about how it is unfair.

If the instigator ignores the comment section, in my opinion, the debate should be accepted with a kritik to ensure that noobs don't fall into the trap.
"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
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 6:17:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:04:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
If the instigator ignores the comment section, in my opinion, the debate should be accepted with a kritik to ensure that noobs don't fall into the trap.

So, what if newbies fall into a "trap." They would simply have to argue their way out of it. With MagicAintReal's debate, they could have made a case for why the idiomatic definition needs to be considered in context. They could have argued that Pro's deliberate ambiguity should be resolved in their favor.

As for Death23's Sea Lions are seals debate, no newbie would have accepted it because they are not stupid. What would they have expected if they accepted it?

So, to accept and complain like Zaradi did seems to have no benefit at all for the site.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 10:19:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 6:17:06 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:04:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
If the instigator ignores the comment section, in my opinion, the debate should be accepted with a kritik to ensure that noobs don't fall into the trap.

So, what if newbies fall into a "trap." They would simply have to argue their way out of it. With MagicAintReal's debate, they could have made a case for why the idiomatic definition needs to be considered in context. They could have argued that Pro's deliberate ambiguity should be resolved in their favor.

As for Death23's Sea Lions are seals debate, no newbie would have accepted it because they are not stupid. What would they have expected if they accepted it?

So, to accept and complain like Zaradi did seems to have no benefit at all for the site.

Many newbies accepted. I think I debated the topic repeatedly perhaps a dozen times or so. That topic is especially enticing to newbies for some reason.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:21:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 10:19:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:17:06 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:04:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
If the instigator ignores the comment section, in my opinion, the debate should be accepted with a kritik to ensure that noobs don't fall into the trap.

So, what if newbies fall into a "trap." They would simply have to argue their way out of it. With MagicAintReal's debate, they could have made a case for why the idiomatic definition needs to be considered in context. They could have argued that Pro's deliberate ambiguity should be resolved in their favor.

As for Death23's Sea Lions are seals debate, no newbie would have accepted it because they are not stupid. What would they have expected if they accepted it?

So, to accept and complain like Zaradi did seems to have no benefit at all for the site.

Many newbies accepted. I think I debated the topic repeatedly perhaps a dozen times or so. That topic is especially enticing to newbies for some reason.

It seems they have. That's still up to the contender to deal with it. I don't know why somebody has to play mini-police and accept all the resolutions he thinks are unfair to "protect" the newbies.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:49:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 4:21:42 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 10:19:22 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 3/31/2016 6:17:06 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:04:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
If the instigator ignores the comment section, in my opinion, the debate should be accepted with a kritik to ensure that noobs don't fall into the trap.

So, what if newbies fall into a "trap." They would simply have to argue their way out of it. With MagicAintReal's debate, they could have made a case for why the idiomatic definition needs to be considered in context. They could have argued that Pro's deliberate ambiguity should be resolved in their favor.

As for Death23's Sea Lions are seals debate, no newbie would have accepted it because they are not stupid. What would they have expected if they accepted it?

So, to accept and complain like Zaradi did seems to have no benefit at all for the site.

Many newbies accepted. I think I debated the topic repeatedly perhaps a dozen times or so. That topic is especially enticing to newbies for some reason.

It seems they have. That's still up to the contender to deal with it. I don't know why somebody has to play mini-police and accept all the resolutions he thinks are unfair to "protect" the newbies.

Nobody has to play mini-police. Zaradi's argument in the sea lion debate emphasized fairness; My argument focused on deception. The two issues shouldn't be confounded.

My problem with it is the injustice of the whole thing. An instigator goes fishing with a debate, sneaking in a preferential term, and seeking to cause and take advantage of an opponent's reasonable mistake. Then, when the debate is completed, this deceptive scheme gets rewarded by the voters. In this situation, deception is being rewarded rather than being punished. The purpose of playing mini-police is to prevent the injustice. A deeper problem which allows for these schemes to succeed is probably that voters have a strong appreciation for the notion that agreements should be binding, but a low awareness for the facts and circumstances which are sufficient cause for voiding agreements.