Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Formal Debaters Have an Edge

Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 7:29:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Myself included, I can immediately see when someone is an experienced debater from school or university. Then, without fail, I scroll down and see them pwn their opponent.

We learn so much that is invaluable. We know what to focus on during a round, where to stress, and how to make our arguments sound more convincing. The terms that are outlined in the DDO orientation, like what turns, links, warrants, and contentions are, will still be new to completely fresh debaters yet ingrained in the minds of hardened debaters. When these two DDO rookies face off, one side has an advantage, obviously.

So what are your thoughts: is this advantage surpassable in a relatively probable and possible manner, or does it take a special person who is just built to be a great debater?
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wdarko
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 7:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think this is true. I think that even if you are a hardened debater, you can still be a bad one. I think it has more to do with having confidence with what you say. If we had a debate and had access to the same information, it would be the person that is more certain about what they're saying who would win the argument. Also, there are some unorthodox debaters that are sometimes better than regular debaters, because they don't fit a mold.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 8:05:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 7:59:57 PM, Wdarko wrote:
If we had a debate and had access to the same information, it would be the person that is more certain about what they're saying who would win the argument.

Wouldn't the debater beat the rookie in this situation nonetheless? You could have a timid debater and a grand rookie, I realize, however, confidence is only a large part, not the whole part. If the rookie's contentions or arguments were to be deemed invalid or his links damaged somewhere along the way to his conclusion, he would lose, and this loss would be because of his lack of debate knowledge.

I keep my stand that debaters have an edge because one, they will not make these detrimental mistakes that are unidentifiable to most rookies, and they will most likely be confident, which you say is necessary, because debate is a field that favors confident people and picks them out in the form of natural selection.
if this debater were not confident he would not come to this site and challenge many people. Ergo, all of my points stand defended.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wdarko
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 9:23:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 8:05:57 PM, Range wrote:

Wouldn't the debater beat the rookie in this situation nonetheless? You could have a timid debater and a grand rookie, I realize, however, confidence is only a large part, not the whole part. If the rookie's contentions or arguments were to be deemed invalid or his links damaged somewhere along the way to his conclusion, he would lose, and this loss would be because of his lack of debate knowledge.

I think it's the extent of the knowledge that you know as a debater. If you know every single aspect of your opponent's information in a debate based on your perception of what debate is and your opponent is clueless, it's likely that you will win. But that usually doesn't occur. Since the rookie isn't used to fitting the mold of what debate is, and if the rookie has a good argument, the experienced debater would have a harder time understanding the rookie's style, so they could lose the argument as well.

I keep my stand that debaters have an edge because one, they will not make these detrimental mistakes that are unidentifiable to most rookies

The rookie could have experience in another sense. Maybe they argue with their siblings a lot, and notice these mistakes with their debates, but not in the way that you're describing it (formal debating).

debate is a field that favors confident people and picks them out in the form of natural selection.

Debate lauds people who are confident, but do not control the people who do debate. I could lose every debate I am in, but that doesn't mean that I will be ousted from the debate spectrum

We need to remember that since the rookie is new to debate, the formal debater isn't used to the style with which the rookie debates. The rookie, however, can learn the way the other debates, because they are still trying to learn.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 9:48:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 9:23:54 PM, Wdarko wrote:
I think it's the extent of the knowledge that you know as a debater. If you know every single aspect of your opponent's information in a debate based on your perception of what debate is and your opponent is clueless, it's likely that you will win. But that usually doesn't occur. Since the rookie isn't used to fitting the mold of what debate is, and if the rookie has a good argument, the experienced debater would have a harder time understanding the rookie's style, so they could lose the argument as well.

Experience is a key factor, still. The debater will have seen unique arguments in their lifetime while the rookie will be stuck with whatever he manages to encounter in his. You won't know every aspect of your opponent's information but rather where they're going with it. You'll see if they're trying to do a turn on you and will have this vital piece of info. "So you're turning my contention 3, ehh? Fine, i'll do a counter by turning your c2 and rebutting your c3 in response."
Exceptions exist but you can't rely on them for your arguments.


The rookie could have experience in another sense. Maybe they argue with their siblings a lot, and notice these mistakes with their debates, but not in the way that you're describing it (formal debating).

As I said, their siblings are no comparison to other debaters that our formal debater contends with during his career. You aren't forced to think so critically at home, even if you're explaining to your mom why you shouldn't have a bedtime. When you have to actively rebute and create new attacks, you're forced into a situation which provides more aid to you when you're going against the rookie than what he received.


debate is a field that favors confident people and picks them out in the form of natural selection.

Debate lauds people who are confident, but do not control the people who do debate. I could lose every debate I am in, but that doesn't mean that I will be ousted from the debate spectrum

We need to remember that since the rookie is new to debate, the formal debater isn't used to the style with which the rookie debates. The rookie, however, can learn the way the other debates, because they are still trying to learn.

If you lose every round, then the probability of you debating in your free time is much lower than someone who breaks even or wins. I call for an On Balance discussion, where individual examples and theoretical situations about rookies who just might defy these kinds of odds are possible therefore you are more correct than me, are arguments that do not pull through.

Probability is crucial.
1. The break-even debater joining a debate site > The losing debater joining.
2. The rookie being prepared for debates through home/real life experience > The rookie not knowing how to handle the arguments and tricks coming his way.
3. The rookie being clever yet not joining a debate team when at school > The rookie not being a rookie if he's so clever, since he identified his passion for debate and joined said team, where we just lost our hypothetical rookie. This is a problem with your points. Disregarding that part that they are not on balance and individual, unique examples, if this rookie was so good at debating, why didn't he join team (in which case he wouldn't be the rookie we are looking for here)?
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wdarko
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 10:56:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 9:48:20 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/1/2015 9:23:54 PM, Wdarko wrote:
I think it's the extent of the knowledge that you know as a debater. If you know every single aspect of your opponent's information in a debate based on your perception of what debate is and your opponent is clueless, it's likely that you will win. But that usually doesn't occur. Since the rookie isn't used to fitting the mold of what debate is, and if the rookie has a good argument, the experienced debater would have a harder time understanding the rookie's style, so they could lose the argument as well.

Experience is a key factor, still. The debater will have seen unique arguments in their lifetime while the rookie will be stuck with whatever he manages to encounter in his. You won't know every aspect of your opponent's information but rather where they're going with it. You'll see if they're trying to do a turn on you and will have this vital piece of info. "So you're turning my contention 3, ehh? Fine, i'll do a counter by turning your c2 and rebutting your c3 in response."

Terms like "turn" are not understandable to rookies, but the concepts of them are. If an experienced debater just says "turn" and other terms like that without adding any meaning, then it wouldn't be taken into account by a good judge, anyway. And seeing new arguments before doesn't mean that you've seen all of them. Remember, the rookie hasn't been exposed to the ideas of the debate world.

Exceptions exist but you can't rely on them for your arguments.


The rookie could have experience in another sense. Maybe they argue with their siblings a lot, and notice these mistakes with their debates, but not in the way that you're describing it (formal debating).

As I said, their siblings are no comparison to other debaters that our formal debater contends with during his career. You aren't forced to think so critically at home, even if you're explaining to your mom why you shouldn't have a bedtime. When you have to actively rebute and create new attacks, you're forced into a situation which provides more aid to you when you're going against the rookie than what he received.

Most debate arguments are the similar to each other, so this practice is usually just getting used to the types of arguments people in debate usually use. Since the rookie is bringing in new arguments, the debater can't use this skill.



debate is a field that favors confident people and picks them out in the form of natural selection.

Debate lauds people who are confident, but do not control the people who do debate. I could lose every debate I am in, but that doesn't mean that I will be ousted from the debate spectrum

We need to remember that since the rookie is new to debate, the formal debater isn't used to the style with which the rookie debates. The rookie, however, can learn the way the other debates, because they are still trying to learn.

If you lose every round, then the probability of you debating in your free time is much lower than someone who breaks even or wins.
Then what is practice?

Probability is crucial.
1. The break-even debater joining a debate site > The losing debater joining.
Considering that one debater has a greater desire of winning more, The loser debater would more likely look for ways to practice, if there even is a difference in the probability of them going on a debate site.
2. The rookie being prepared for debates through home/real life experience > The rookie not knowing how to handle the arguments and tricks coming his way.
Since the rookie is bringing in new arguments, the experienced debater would not have much more experience here aside from terms, which are useless.
3. The rookie being clever yet not joining a debate team when at school > The rookie not being a rookie if he's so clever, since he identified his passion for debate and joined said team, where we just lost our hypothetical rookie.
There are tons of clever people I know who decided not to join debate, who love to debate. Also, some people I know just don't like the way debate is structured, so they don't participate (anymore).
This is a problem with your points. Disregarding that part that they are not on balance and individual, unique examples, if this rookie was so good at debating, why didn't he join team (in which case he wouldn't be the rookie we are looking for here)?
Again, some people have other reasons for not joining debate aside from being good at debating. You're saying that I'm only looking at individual examples, but 1. These examples are what I've witnessed and 2. If all the people who like debating were in the debate, the debate world wouldn't look like it is now.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 11:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 10:56:00 PM, Wdarko wrote:
Experience is a key factor, still. The debater will have seen unique arguments in their lifetime while the rookie will be stuck with whatever he manages to encounter in his. You won't know every aspect of your opponent's information but rather where they're going with it. You'll see if they're trying to do a turn on you and will have this vital piece of info. "So you're turning my contention 3, ehh? Fine, i'll do a counter by turning your c2 and rebutting your c3 in response."

Terms like "turn" are not understandable to rookies, but the concepts of them are. If an experienced debater just says "turn" and other terms like that without adding any meaning, then it wouldn't be taken into account by a good judge, anyway. And seeing new arguments before doesn't mean that you've seen all of them.

They might see that something they said is being used against them, which is what a turn is, however they are unable to identify it in time. When they hear it, they might be thinking, "Wow he"s using my OWN words against me"" While the debater would recognize it instantly and be more efficient, therefore superior.

Exceptions exist but you can't rely on them for your arguments.

What do you say to this? Most debaters are as I describe, yet most rookies might not be as you describe. It"s a think line, however. Nonetheless, I applaud your reaction in your responses to generalize more and counter this observation of mine.

As I said, their siblings are no comparison to other debaters that our formal debater contends with during his career. You aren't forced to think so critically at home, even if you're explaining to your mom why you shouldn't have a bedtime. When you have to actively rebute and create new attacks, you're forced into a situation which provides more aid to you when you're going against the rookie than what he received.

Most debate arguments are the similar to each other, so this practice is usually just getting used to the types of arguments people in debate usually use. Since the rookie is bringing in new arguments, the debater can't use this skill.

He doesn"t have to use his skill because the arguments are of less substance. They are straightforward: the way you argue at home. Although when I"m around my parents I would love to tell them that what they are saying is a non-sequitur or that they strayed from the original resolution. I can"t use my debate knowledge around anyone who is not a debater or I"ll be called a jerk and have to pay for my own lunch. However, the problem stands: they have no debate experience therefore i cannot learn from them. If I only had them as opponents I would not develop my skills.


If you lose every round, then the probability of you debating in your free time is much lower than someone who breaks even or wins.
Then what is practice?

Practice is discouraged by the suggestion that you might not be suited for something. This suggestion is coming at you from your ranking. You feel let down by yourself. I"m not gonna say much about this, it"s a feeling of rejection. Why would you want more rejection?
Yes, you ant to get better! But very few think like this. I suck at baseball; I won"t be trying it again. We are working on balance: that one individual who want to be a good debater despite early-on adversity rank-wise is the minority, therefore we cannot consider him.

Probability is crucial.
1. The break-even debater joining a debate site > The losing debater joining.
Considering that one debater has a greater desire of winning more, The loser debater would more likely look for ways to practice, if there even is a difference in the probability of them going on a debate site.

I address this minority-type debater who wants practice. It"s impractical to think this way.

2. The rookie being prepared for debates through home/real life experience > The rookie not knowing how to handle the arguments and tricks coming his way.
Since the rookie is bringing in new arguments, the experienced debater would not have much more experience here aside from terms, which are useless.

Not only terms. That is not the only basis for my argument. They have a different viewpoint and more confidence, which you said yourself is important for a good debater.

3. The rookie being clever yet not joining a debate team when at school > The rookie not being a rookie if he's so clever, since he identified his passion for debate and joined said team, where we just lost our hypothetical rookie.
There are tons of clever people I know who decided not to join debate, who love to debate. Also, some people I know just don't like the way debate is structured, so they don't participate (anymore).

Point observed. I will address this in the next line.

This is a problem with your points. Disregarding that part that they are not on balance and individual, unique examples, if this rookie was so good at debating, why didn't he join team (in which case he wouldn't be the rookie we are looking for here)?
Again, some people have other reasons for not joining debate aside from being good at debating. You're saying that I'm only looking at individual examples, but 1. These examples are what I've witnessed and 2. If all the people who like debating were in the debate, the debate world wouldn't look like it is now.

True, they don"t necessarily have to be on a team, however, interests do not come without interest: they would study up on or initiate debates with people they thought would provide some sustenance in the way of their learning would be concerned. If the rookie in your hypothetical situation is someone who is interested in debate, they are not a rookie anymore, they are an amateur. Please aim to differentiate between the two.

Actually, allow me:
A rookie is someone with NO previous experience WHATSOEVER. This means the rookie cannot have an interest in debate that led him to delve into it. A small interest is necessary or course, in order for him to accept the round, but with no research done.
An amateur is someone outside of the realms of this debate. This person is simply a high-motivated rookie who studied up.
Observation: this does not mean that the rookie cannot be high motivated, but only motivated in respect to winning. This person wants to win like anyone else, even if they have had no outside motivation to pursue debate before.

(PS: are the opinions/arguments you state here part of the reason you usually compete in the OPEN type of LD?)
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
That1User
Posts: 1,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 11:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 7:29:00 PM, Range wrote:
Myself included, I can immediately see when someone is an experienced debater from school or university. Then, without fail, I scroll down and see them pwn their opponent.

We learn so much that is invaluable. We know what to focus on during a round, where to stress, and how to make our arguments sound more convincing. The terms that are outlined in the DDO orientation, like what turns, links, warrants, and contentions are, will still be new to completely fresh debaters yet ingrained in the minds of hardened debaters. When these two DDO rookies face off, one side has an advantage, obviously.

So what are your thoughts: is this advantage surpassable in a relatively probable and possible manner, or does it take a special person who is just built to be a great debater?

Hmm... I'm not a formal debator but I seem to be relatively successful in terms of debates on this site. My school does not have a formal debate team but I do have an interest in debates, so that may give me an edge.
"Our life is what our thoughts make it."
R13; Marcus Aurelius
"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Marcus Aurelius
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do. "-Voltaire
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 11:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 11:52:39 PM, That1User wrote:
Hmm... I'm not a formal debater but I seem to be relatively successful in terms of debates on this site.

Why do you think you do well? Or is it just relative?
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
That1User
Posts: 1,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 11:55:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 11:55:24 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/1/2015 11:52:39 PM, That1User wrote:
Hmm... I'm not a formal debater but I seem to be relatively successful in terms of debates on this site.

Why do you think you do well? Or is it just relative?

The 100% win ratio (so far)
"Our life is what our thoughts make it."
R13; Marcus Aurelius
"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Marcus Aurelius
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do. "-Voltaire
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 11:57:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 11:55:56 PM, That1User wrote:
The 100% win ratio (so far)

I was thinking more along the lines of characteristics. So you're on Wdarko's side, then?
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
That1User
Posts: 1,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 11:59:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 11:57:20 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/1/2015 11:55:56 PM, That1User wrote:
The 100% win ratio (so far)

I was thinking more along the lines of characteristics. So you're on Wdarko's side, then?

Sides? I'm not on anyone's side, I'm simply making a personal observation.
"Our life is what our thoughts make it."
R13; Marcus Aurelius
"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Marcus Aurelius
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do. "-Voltaire
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:27:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 7:29:00 PM, Range wrote:
Myself included, I can immediately see when someone is an experienced debater from school or university. Then, without fail, I scroll down and see them pwn their opponent.

We learn so much that is invaluable. We know what to focus on during a round, where to stress, and how to make our arguments sound more convincing. The terms that are outlined in the DDO orientation, like what turns, links, warrants, and contentions are, will still be new to completely fresh debaters yet ingrained in the minds of hardened debaters. When these two DDO rookies face off, one side has an advantage, obviously.

So what are your thoughts: is this advantage surpassable in a relatively probable and possible manner, or does it take a special person who is just built to be a great debater?

This advantage is certainly surpassable, and even attainable. When I started on DDO, I wasn't an experienced debater. I had zero experience. The more I debated the more I learned. I learned about BOP and logical fallacies, and I've become a pretty formal debater. I took the skills learned from DDO and had real debates in real life.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 10:01:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think I have a disadvantage over formal debators. It's a different judging standard here asi it should be and a lot of times they have trouble unlearning some stuff that works IRL, but doesn't work here or at least isn't optimal here.

I did come on the site with a lot of knowledge on logic. I did what I could to learn logic 101, including listening to professors lecture on it on YouTube and reading numerous articles.

I'm well aware of BOP. I've also done a lot of research on cognitive bias and try to recognize and destroy it in myself, though it's not always easy to destroy, even when I do recognize it.

I think rhetoric has a larger role here than it likely does IRL, so me being highly aware of that helps me significantly as well. It probably helps me more than logic does.

That being said. I don't think the IRL debators have an advantage over me. There are exceptions to that because their are ones that in my opinion rely too much on perverting the analysis of the resolution, but I'm closing that gap quickly while refusing to pervert resolution analysis myself.

That's just one example of an advantage, I've noticed.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 10:10:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 7:29:00 PM, Range wrote:
Myself included, I can immediately see when someone is an experienced debater from school or university. Then, without fail, I scroll down and see them pwn their opponent.

We learn so much that is invaluable. We know what to focus on during a round, where to stress, and how to make our arguments sound more convincing. The terms that are outlined in the DDO orientation, like what turns, links, warrants, and contentions are, will still be new to completely fresh debaters yet ingrained in the minds of hardened debaters. When these two DDO rookies face off, one side has an advantage, obviously.

So what are your thoughts: is this advantage surpassable in a relatively probable and possible manner, or does it take a special person who is just built to be a great debater?

Mind looking at a few of my debates? What would you say my level of skill is?
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:14:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I"ll take this response to be a devil"s advocate toward my own points. Thanks for the opportunity, Bennett.
I observe: that me and my opponent Wdarko (that's what I"ll just refer to him as now :D) failed to address the probability that anyone on this site, take a random chance, will not be an idiot.
I forgot about this, and although it goes against my case, I should have addressed it for the sake of a quality round.
I observe: terms are not necessary at all. With this I fully support what Wdarko was saying,

At 1/1/2015 10:56:00 PM, Wdarko wrote:
Experience is a key factor, still. The debater will have seen unique arguments in their lifetime while the rookie will be stuck with whatever he manages to encounter in his. You won't know every aspect of your opponent's information but rather where they're going with it. You'll see if they're trying to do a turn on you and will have this vital piece of info. "So you're turning my contention 3, ehh? Fine, i'll do a counter by turning your c2 and rebutting your c3 in response."

Terms like "turn" are not understandable to rookies, but the concepts of them are. If an experienced debater just says "turn" and other terms like that without adding any meaning, then it wouldn't be taken into account by a good judge, anyway. And seeing new arguments before doesn't mean that you've seen all of them.

The concept register fully. Forget "turn" and so on, that"s not the point, it"s the logistics of the debate that were under fire here. Only in this round do I fully admit that Wdarko is correct in this assumption, under the example of Bennett91. You want a review. This is it, observance of my opponent"s corrects. You can give me a set of reasons why Wdarko is correct or his points apply to you if they do, since it applies to at least your situation. Thoughts?

Moving on.

The reason why I ask for these details is because the logistics of what Pro calls for will play a vital role in the effectiveness of this "aggressive" plan.

My opponents main point in his very brief Round One Statement was that increased screening would keep the US and other countries Ebola free.

What do I gather from this? I see the basic constructions that we"re taught to make. The first statement is a warrant and the second is a clear opening to a rebuttal. Although the format is off because no one here adheres to a PF (which is what I participated in) round structure or LD, rebuttals being integrated in cases, and responses mashed together with new contentions. This is the style of DDO, I"ll take it.

Furthermore you did not specify just the US. First, this is a utilitarian debate which argues what is the most good for the most people. By limiting the debate to only the US you are ignoring what is good for the rest of the world, especially that of the truly effected nations in Africa. If all human beings are equal you can not limit the scope of this global crisis to the US. If "good" is to be defined as eradicating".

Alright, good job. The scope is observed and used against the opponent.
I observe: Is the theoretical debater I have presented someone who thinks or just uses the material he is handed on a chalkboard platter? This is more crucial to the debate than I realized. Bennett is capable of figuring out weak spots in someone"s case, and seeing loopholes to justify his arguments - like observing the scope and using it against the opponent. That"s interesting, and although debaters use it, they are praised for it as well.
Why would they, however, aren"t they "taught" this? No. We"ll learn vocab and all application skills necessary for it, however when the debater has a weak CPU and a terrible HDD, I can"t pretend that he"ll be able to do anything with the amazing program that"s been written onto his disk.
This is the fallacy on my side, as well as the problem that my opponent continually faces.
Debaters without oil in their heads will not win against even an ok rookie. I know many people that would shudder when facing Bennett. I also know many that would crush him, however I must admit that the former out populate the latter. That"s your compliment, Bennett.

I accept, therefore I am.

I see that, you clever little sh*t. I also love it, but let"s go beyond that.

This goes on to painfully prove a point for Wdarko: it"s all about intelligence in the end.
Yes, debaters have a more probable predisposition, yes, debaters have more experience, yes, they even might be elected by the very nature of debate to be smarter, but that means jack when thrown into the vast pool of possible opponents.
This debate itself is inherently useless. Keep posting your opinions, no debate is ever to be disregarded, but don"t take it seriously either. Don"t start worrying that you"ll lose just because you"re a novice to the core, a rookie. It means nothing. As long as you"re confident in your abilities like Bennett and use your noggin in a way that is non-unique to any type of person, debater or rookie or cow farmer, you"re set to go and you"ll make it up there with Mikal.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:24:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 10:01:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't think I have a disadvantage over formal debators. It's a different judging standard here asi it should be and a lot of times they have trouble unlearning some stuff that works IRL, but doesn't work here or at least isn't optimal here.
...
I'm well aware of BOP. I've also done a lot of research on cognitive bias and try to recognize and destroy it in myself, though it's not always easy to destroy, even when I do recognize it.
...
That being said. I don't think the IRL debators have an advantage over me. There are exceptions to that because their are ones that in my opinion rely too much on perverting the analysis of the resolution, but I'm closing that gap quickly while refusing to pervert resolution analysis myself.

Motivated rookie; lazy debater.
Motivated rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.
Clever rookie; any except top-notch debater.
Learned rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.

In all these situations the debater is on a losing probability. My case is flawed, but so is Wdarko's, because we're not allowed to take these kinds of things into consideration when working on-balance.

The resolution (which is what I'm calling this forum topic now) is not reflective of these scenarios that come to be prevalent in not only DDO but IRL as well. Open debaters, who debate in a ladder of both novices and varsity, understand this. I have never participated in Open and do not plan to. You can then reach a conclusion that I don't want this unexpected rookie/novice come along and flip my view of the roles of a rookie vs varsity, even though I showed in my previous post that they are quite malleable. (Although this conclusion in incorrect for misc./personal reasons.)
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:00:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 11:24:21 AM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 10:01:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't think I have a disadvantage over formal debators. It's a different judging standard here asi it should be and a lot of times they have trouble unlearning some stuff that works IRL, but doesn't work here or at least isn't optimal here.
...
I'm well aware of BOP. I've also done a lot of research on cognitive bias and try to recognize and destroy it in myself, though it's not always easy to destroy, even when I do recognize it.
...
That being said. I don't think the IRL debators have an advantage over me. There are exceptions to that because their are ones that in my opinion rely too much on perverting the analysis of the resolution, but I'm closing that gap quickly while refusing to pervert resolution analysis myself.

Motivated rookie; lazy debater.
Motivated rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.
Clever rookie; any except top-notch debater.
Learned rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.

In all these situations the debater is on a losing probability. My case is flawed, but so is Wdarko's, because we're not allowed to take these kinds of things into consideration when working on-balance.

The resolution (which is what I'm calling this forum topic now) is not reflective of these scenarios that come to be prevalent in not only DDO but IRL as well. Open debaters, who debate in a ladder of both novices and varsity, understand this. I have never participated in Open and do not plan to. You can then reach a conclusion that I don't want this unexpected rookie/novice come along and flip my view of the roles of a rookie vs varsity, even though I showed in my previous post that they are quite malleable. (Although this conclusion in incorrect for misc./personal reasons.)

I don't know what you're saying now.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:10:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:00:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/2/2015 11:24:21 AM, Range wrote:

Motivated rookie; lazy debater.
Motivated rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.
Clever rookie; any except top-notch debater.
Learned rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.

In all these situations the debater is on a losing probability. My case is flawed, but so is Wdarko's, because we're not allowed to take these kinds of things into consideration when working on-balance.

The resolution (which is what I'm calling this forum topic now) is not reflective of these scenarios that come to be prevalent in not only DDO but IRL as well. Open debaters, who debate in a ladder of both novices and varsity, understand this. I have never participated in Open and do not plan to. You can then reach a conclusion that I don't want this unexpected rookie/novice come along and flip my view of the roles of a rookie vs varsity, even though I showed in my previous post that they are quite malleable. (Although this conclusion in incorrect for misc./personal reasons.)

I don't know what you're saying now.

)-: Alright then:
I'm furthering what I think are your points.
I talk about scenarios. The (___rookie; ___ debater) are face-offs, situations involving two possible contenders, and their characteristics.
These situations are the main problem with sticking a debater and rookie against each other. You can't make a general assumption or use an on-balance framework because it'll end up backfiring somewhere near the end.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:11:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:10:21 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:00:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/2/2015 11:24:21 AM, Range wrote:

Motivated rookie; lazy debater.
Motivated rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.
Clever rookie; any except top-notch debater.
Learned rookie; run-of-the-mill debater.

In all these situations the debater is on a losing probability. My case is flawed, but so is Wdarko's, because we're not allowed to take these kinds of things into consideration when working on-balance.

The resolution (which is what I'm calling this forum topic now) is not reflective of these scenarios that come to be prevalent in not only DDO but IRL as well. Open debaters, who debate in a ladder of both novices and varsity, understand this. I have never participated in Open and do not plan to. You can then reach a conclusion that I don't want this unexpected rookie/novice come along and flip my view of the roles of a rookie vs varsity, even though I showed in my previous post that they are quite malleable. (Although this conclusion in incorrect for misc./personal reasons.)

I don't know what you're saying now.

)-: Alright then:
I'm furthering what I think are your points.
I talk about scenarios. The (___rookie; ___ debater) are face-offs, situations involving two possible contenders, and their characteristics.
These situations are the main problem with sticking a debater and rookie against each other. You can't make a general assumption or use an on-balance framework because it'll end up backfiring somewhere near the end.

Are you an experienced debator
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:11:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:10:21 PM, Range wrote:
)-: Alright then:
I'm furthering what I think are your points.
I talk about scenarios. The (___rookie; ___ debater) are face-offs, situations involving two possible contenders, and their characteristics.
These situations are the main problem with sticking a debater and rookie against each other. You can't make a general assumption or use an on-balance framework because it'll end up backfiring somewhere near the end.

Are you an experienced debator

Yeah, and I've started arguing with myself here.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:13:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:12:44 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:11:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:10:21 PM, Range wrote:
)-: Alright then:
I'm furthering what I think are your points.
I talk about scenarios. The (___rookie; ___ debater) are face-offs, situations involving two possible contenders, and their characteristics.
These situations are the main problem with sticking a debater and rookie against each other. You can't make a general assumption or use an on-balance framework because it'll end up backfiring somewhere near the end.

Are you an experienced debator

Yeah, and I've started arguing with myself here.

Would you like to debate me and see if you feel like you have an advantage?
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:18:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:13:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
Would you like to debate me and see if you feel like you have an advantage?

lol
I'm not on either side, and I really do outline why no aforementioned edge exists.

Depends on the topic. I don't like using evidence here, because it takes up too much of my time. I'll probably take a philosophical debate.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:30:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:18:51 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:13:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
Would you like to debate me and see if you feel like you have an advantage?

lol
I'm not on either side, and I really do outline why no aforementioned edge exists.

Depends on the topic. I don't like using evidence here, because it takes up too much of my time. I'll probably take a philosophical debate.

It's okay. I was just testing how strongly you felt about your assertion.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:36:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:30:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's okay. I was just testing how strongly you felt about your assertion.

aww. no debate? We can debate this resolution/topic and I'll take the Pro again. I'm familiar with the con now since I began arguing it myself, making my future cases even stronger. I really thought Wdarko would challenge me but meh.
I'm not that into this topic though, just wanted to see thoughts/ be exposed to another side.

Or not. It doesn't matter, but now either I keep going pro in this thread or we sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for another pro contender to come along.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:36:31 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:30:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's okay. I was just testing how strongly you felt about your assertion.

aww. no debate? We can debate this resolution/topic and I'll take the Pro again. I'm familiar with the con now since I began arguing it myself, making my future cases even stronger. I really thought Wdarko would challenge me but meh.
I'm not that into this topic though, just wanted to see thoughts/ be exposed to another side.

Or not. It doesn't matter, but now either I keep going pro in this thread or we sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for another pro contender to come along.

What's the resolution

"Experienced debators have an advantage on DDO"

You're pro?
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:42:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:40:36 PM, Wylted wrote:
What's the resolution

"Experienced debators have an advantage on DDO"

You're pro?

Sigh.
Sure. I'm pro because you want to be con right? Take whatever side you want.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:42:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:42:04 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:40:36 PM, Wylted wrote:
What's the resolution

"Experienced debators have an advantage on DDO"

You're pro?

Sigh.
Sure. I'm pro because you want to be con right? Take whatever side you want.

You're the experienced formal debator, I'm the one with zero experience. I think the sides are fair.
Range
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:46:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:42:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
You're the experienced formal debator, I'm the one with zero experience. I think the sides are fair.

Well, you're not, with 100 debates behind you, you're the learned rookie we discussed in one of our scenarios. Maybe zero IRL experience but there are other factors. Also I'm kinda taking the jerk side, in which case my first debate will probably be a loss.
My main point with the thread was to gain insight and see some opinions. And above all, for me to have fun opposing everyone in order to spur more conversation.
Anything can be justified. You just need a solid framework and some duct tape.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:47:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:46:01 PM, Range wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:42:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
You're the experienced formal debator, I'm the one with zero experience. I think the sides are fair.

Well, you're not, with 100 debates behind you, you're the learned rookie we discussed in one of our scenarios. Maybe zero IRL experience but there are other factors. Also I'm kinda taking the jerk side, in which case my first debate will probably be a loss.
My main point with the thread was to gain insight and see some opinions. And above all, for me to have fun opposing everyone in order to spur more conversation.

What do you mean by formal debate? I have zero formal debates. Do you consider these debates formal?