Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is it going to take

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:21:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

I would check to see if I am expressing myself clearly enough first. I would also try to ascertain whether the person is a superior debater by a significant enough margin that debate topic might not matter. Eventually I hope I would concede I am wrong.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:23:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:21:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

I would check to see if I am expressing myself clearly enough first. I would also try to ascertain whether the person is a superior debater by a significant enough margin that debate topic might not matter. Eventually I hope I would concede I am wrong.

If a person can beat you just because they're a better debater, why can't you beat him if your arguments are correct?

Wouldn't you at least resign in the arena of debate?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:23:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

Have you finally seen that TAA is right, and you were foolish to ever question his glorious vagueness?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:27:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:23:04 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:21:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

I would check to see if I am expressing myself clearly enough first. I would also try to ascertain whether the person is a superior debater by a significant enough margin that debate topic might not matter. Eventually I hope I would concede I am wrong.

If a person can beat you just because they're a better debater, why can't you beat him if your arguments are correct?
Because I might suck at being persuasive or clear. I might make my arguments too verbose or spartan. Hypotheticals really, as I haven't thought out particularly clearly what constitutes a superior debater.

Wouldn't you at least resign in the arena of debate?
Probably, but I'm a glutton for punishment XD
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:30:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:27:00 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Because I might suck at being persuasive or clear. I might make my arguments too verbose or spartan. Hypotheticals really, as I haven't thought out particularly clearly what constitutes a superior debater.

Well I'm saying that you'd lose to objective judges. So they wouldn't care if your rhetoric wasn't good enough. They'd look at the logical content of what you're saying.

Wouldn't you at least resign in the arena of debate?
Probably, but I'm a glutton for punishment XD
Ah yeah. I would definitely want to debate too to try and improve my skill. What I mean is that you would resign hope of objectively proving your ideology. At that point you would be debating your politics on a faith-basis.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:30:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:23:22 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Have you finally seen that TAA is right, and you were foolish to ever question his glorious vagueness?

I think he's had "enough" :)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:34:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Probably not, I'm fairly new to debating and it's really a matter of how well you express yourself and address your opponent's points. There's some strategy in there, but as long as I can confidently address all the questions thrown at me the belief is probably staying. Debating ability is not equal to "correctness" or even knowledge on a subject.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:47:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:34:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Probably not, I'm fairly new to debating and it's really a matter of how well you express yourself and address your opponent's points. There's some strategy in there, but as long as I can confidently address all the questions thrown at me the belief is probably staying. Debating ability is not equal to "correctness" or even knowledge on a subject.

I'm saying the round is decided objectively on the basis of logic.

I know the ability to out-logic someone else is not deductively equal to "correctness", but its a necessary condition.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:49:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:30:22 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:27:00 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Because I might suck at being persuasive or clear. I might make my arguments too verbose or spartan. Hypotheticals really, as I haven't thought out particularly clearly what constitutes a superior debater.

Well I'm saying that you'd lose to objective judges. So they wouldn't care if your rhetoric wasn't good enough. They'd look at the logical content of what you're saying.

Wouldn't you at least resign in the arena of debate?
Probably, but I'm a glutton for punishment XD
Ah yeah. I would definitely want to debate too to try and improve my skill. What I mean is that you would resign hope of objectively proving your ideology. At that point you would be debating your politics on a faith-basis.

I would never express a political ideology on a faith basis. Thats what my faith is for. I suppose assuming perfect judges I would change ideology. If I have an epiphany later and realise I was making the wrong arguments I can always change back.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:56:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:47:52 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:34:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Probably not, I'm fairly new to debating and it's really a matter of how well you express yourself and address your opponent's points. There's some strategy in there, but as long as I can confidently address all the questions thrown at me the belief is probably staying. Debating ability is not equal to "correctness" or even knowledge on a subject.

I'm saying the round is decided objectively on the basis of logic.

I know the ability to out-logic someone else is not deductively equal to "correctness", but its a necessary condition.

Well, would that mean they put forth some syllogism I couldn't respond to? Anyway, a lot of moral decisions tend to have emotional roots and at least on something like abortion you can put forth a logical argument Pro or Con that maybe I haven't heard before and requires me to research some things but it's hardly the end of the issue. Many of my arguments haven't been directly logic, but rather a back and forth between a number of things like definitions, questing underlying ideologies, making appeals to the readers, etc.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:59:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I guess I would have to change sides if it was clear that I was logically mistaken to the extent that it killed my argument and could not find any other justifications, and this has happened but there's usually an attempt to explore the issue deeper.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:59:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:56:56 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:47:52 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:34:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Probably not, I'm fairly new to debating and it's really a matter of how well you express yourself and address your opponent's points. There's some strategy in there, but as long as I can confidently address all the questions thrown at me the belief is probably staying. Debating ability is not equal to "correctness" or even knowledge on a subject.

I'm saying the round is decided objectively on the basis of logic.

I know the ability to out-logic someone else is not deductively equal to "correctness", but its a necessary condition.

Well, would that mean they put forth some syllogism I couldn't respond to? Anyway, a lot of moral decisions tend to have emotional roots and at least on something like abortion you can put forth a logical argument Pro or Con that maybe I haven't heard before and requires me to research some things but it's hardly the end of the issue. Many of my arguments haven't been directly logic, but rather a back and forth between a number of things like definitions, questing underlying ideologies, making appeals to the readers, etc.

Well lets say you could agree on definitions. You can define justice as purple drank if you want.

Does this mean that you'd chalk up differences to emotional differences? What if they beat you on purely mechanical grounds (failure to understand political institutions/options)?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 10:11:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 9:59:38 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:56:56 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:47:52 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 9:34:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Probably not, I'm fairly new to debating and it's really a matter of how well you express yourself and address your opponent's points. There's some strategy in there, but as long as I can confidently address all the questions thrown at me the belief is probably staying. Debating ability is not equal to "correctness" or even knowledge on a subject.

I'm saying the round is decided objectively on the basis of logic.

I know the ability to out-logic someone else is not deductively equal to "correctness", but its a necessary condition.

Well, would that mean they put forth some syllogism I couldn't respond to? Anyway, a lot of moral decisions tend to have emotional roots and at least on something like abortion you can put forth a logical argument Pro or Con that maybe I haven't heard before and requires me to research some things but it's hardly the end of the issue. Many of my arguments haven't been directly logic, but rather a back and forth between a number of things like definitions, questing underlying ideologies, making appeals to the readers, etc.

Well lets say you could agree on definitions. You can define justice as purple drank if you want.

Does this mean that you'd chalk up differences to emotional differences? What if they beat you on purely mechanical grounds (failure to understand political institutions/options)?

When it's all stripped away, a lot of morality seems to come down to general worldview or emotion. Could I have an example of of a political institution I would misunderstand that would change the issue entirely or threaten my moral position?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 11:30:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 10:11:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

When it's all stripped away, a lot of morality seems to come down to general worldview or emotion. Could I have an example of of a political institution I would misunderstand that would change the issue entirely or threaten my moral position?

Well lets say a socialist thinks Norway is a really good example of socialism because an educated citizenry have consistently voted for beneficial policies. If I prove that is wrong and that there is a better theoretical explanation which confirms anti-socialist recommendations, it means you're misunderstanding the institution.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 3:03:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 11:30:10 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 10:11:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

When it's all stripped away, a lot of morality seems to come down to general worldview or emotion. Could I have an example of of a political institution I would misunderstand that would change the issue entirely or threaten my moral position?

Well lets say a socialist thinks Norway is a really good example of socialism because an educated citizenry have consistently voted for beneficial policies. If I prove that is wrong and that there is a better theoretical explanation which confirms anti-socialist recommendations, it means you're misunderstanding the institution.

Ok, that's well and good but socialism is an enormous belief and a worldview. It encompasses moral beliefs and beliefs about human nature, by saying that Norway is not socialist doesn't really make his socialist stance untenable. Maybe the socialist would drop the Norway argument, but you've only barely chipped into his beliefs.

There are plenty of very educated theists who have spent their careers trying to disprove evolution that could certainly present problems for my own understanding of evolution. It's one thing to change someone's stance about a subject that they're unsure about, but core beliefs are like an iceberg that are often quite difficult to destroy all at once. I went from socialist to capitalist over a few years, and then back to moderate. All of these changes were gradual, and coincided with a different worldview.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 3:34:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 3:03:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/6/2011 11:30:10 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/6/2011 10:11:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

When it's all stripped away, a lot of morality seems to come down to general worldview or emotion. Could I have an example of of a political institution I would misunderstand that would change the issue entirely or threaten my moral position?

Well lets say a socialist thinks Norway is a really good example of socialism because an educated citizenry have consistently voted for beneficial policies. If I prove that is wrong and that there is a better theoretical explanation which confirms anti-socialist recommendations, it means you're misunderstanding the institution.

Ok, that's well and good but socialism is an enormous belief and a worldview. It encompasses moral beliefs and beliefs about human nature, by saying that Norway is not socialist doesn't really make his socialist stance untenable. Maybe the socialist would drop the Norway argument, but you've only barely chipped into his beliefs.

I'm not saying it disproves socialism. I'm giving it as an example of an institution that a socialist might fail to understand. That's what you asked for. Don't change the subject.

There are plenty of very educated theists who have spent their careers trying to disprove evolution that could certainly present problems for my own understanding of evolution. It's one thing to change someone's stance about a subject that they're unsure about, but core beliefs are like an iceberg that are often quite difficult to destroy all at once. I went from socialist to capitalist over a few years, and then back to moderate. All of these changes were gradual, and coincided with a different worldview.

k
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 3:45:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not saying it disproves socialism. I'm giving it as an example of an institution that a socialist might fail to understand. That's what you asked for. Don't change the subject.

If someone fails to understand their beliefs to such an extent (like calling Norway 'socialist') that's a huge embarrassment on their part that would hopefully occur only rarely if ever among educated adults.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 8:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

No, I would refuse to accept that the judges were fair or objective and mercilessly hound them with critiques of their RFDs. I would never admit I had lost a debate fairly nor waver in my ideological faith at all.

Sound familiar?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 8:36:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 8:20:50 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

No, I would refuse to accept that the judges were fair or objective and mercilessly hound them with critiques of their RFDs. I would never admit I had lost a debate fairly nor waver in my ideological faith at all.

Sound familiar?

Trololololol

I haven't lost any debates on this site objectively. I've provided sound reasons why people's RFDs are wrong. I am such a stickler for fairness and objectivity that I am the only person I know of pushing for "wildwest" voting panels.

Its just that this place is full of trolls. Sound familiar?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:38:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

Debates aren't determined on truth alone.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 6:17:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 5:38:34 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/6/2011 8:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Let's say you have a debate with someone of opposing ideology and you lose according to objective/fair judges. Let's also say that no matter how many times you debate this person, you cannot win.

Do you resign your ideology?

Debates aren't determined on truth alone.

But how do you know its the truth if you can't come up with arguments for it?

(Please... please don't be making the rhetoric/organization point)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 2:57:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, I wouldn't resign my beliefs if I am confident that my beliefs are correct. It's likely that I am just debating superior debaters, or am being judged by those who are incapable of breaking through their own head trash to see another side. If you hold a minority opinion, but the overall group think is against you, and even though the voters believe they are voting fairly, you will still most likely lose. Do you think JKenyon would have the same win record if he were among hardcore socialists that were actually able to speak coherently to their cause? I don't think so, and that takes nothing away from Kenyon's ability, but it just speaks to the group think that exists in a given context.

A couple months ago you held a position on the number of Jews that died in the holocaust, and you raised legitimate points. However, the group think is against you in most cases, but if you were on an Islamic website, or some neo Nazi website, I'm guessing you'd have no problem gleaning support.

Winning a debate doesn't mean the winner is right.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 4:45:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
@ OP

No one can make me change my mind, by beating me in a debate. I might lose debate due to many reason. Lack of knowledge, lack of debating skills, bias in voting or simply vote-bombs. Start debating new members only, that will immediately give you lots of win. However, that will not validate your positions.

The only person who can change my mind is me. I might see that some of the arguments from my opponent is valid and change my views accordingly. Usually I will end up with a more nuanced view of the subject. Changing my opinion is not about victory or defeat. As far as I am concerned, I am always correct, i.e. as long as I remain honest with myself.

Giving up on realistically defeating a certain member in this community, that is possible. Specially if your opponent is more well read.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 7:36:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 2:57:23 AM, innomen wrote:
No, I wouldn't resign my beliefs if I am confident that my beliefs are correct. It's likely that I am just debating superior debaters, or am being judged by those who are incapable of breaking through their own head trash to see another side. If you hold a minority opinion, but the overall group think is against you, and even though the voters believe they are voting fairly, you will still most likely lose. Do you think JKenyon would have the same win record if he were among hardcore socialists that were actually able to speak coherently to their cause? I don't think so, and that takes nothing away from Kenyon's ability, but it just speaks to the group think that exists in a given context.

A couple months ago you held a position on the number of Jews that died in the holocaust, and you raised legitimate points. However, the group think is against you in most cases, but if you were on an Islamic website, or some neo Nazi website, I'm guessing you'd have no problem gleaning support.

Winning a debate doesn't mean the winner is right.

The point of the OP is to assume that the judging is objective/logical. That they don't bring their preconceptions to the round. If you continuously lose to this objective panel...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 7:37:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 4:45:00 AM, baggins wrote:
@ OP

No one can make me change my mind, by beating me in a debate. I might lose debate due to many reason. Lack of knowledge, lack of debating skills, bias in voting or simply vote-bombs. Start debating new members only, that will immediately give you lots of win. However, that will not validate your positions.

The only person who can change my mind is me. I might see that some of the arguments from my opponent is valid and change my views accordingly. Usually I will end up with a more nuanced view of the subject. Changing my opinion is not about victory or defeat. As far as I am concerned, I am always correct, i.e. as long as I remain honest with myself.

Giving up on realistically defeating a certain member in this community, that is possible. Specially if your opponent is more well read.

So even if you can't prove to other people (objective judges) that you're correct, you still believe you're right? This sounds like the faith based approach.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 4:41:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 7:36:09 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/8/2011 2:57:23 AM, innomen wrote:
No, I wouldn't resign my beliefs if I am confident that my beliefs are correct. It's likely that I am just debating superior debaters, or am being judged by those who are incapable of breaking through their own head trash to see another side. If you hold a minority opinion, but the overall group think is against you, and even though the voters believe they are voting fairly, you will still most likely lose. Do you think JKenyon would have the same win record if he were among hardcore socialists that were actually able to speak coherently to their cause? I don't think so, and that takes nothing away from Kenyon's ability, but it just speaks to the group think that exists in a given context.

A couple months ago you held a position on the number of Jews that died in the holocaust, and you raised legitimate points. However, the group think is against you in most cases, but if you were on an Islamic website, or some neo Nazi website, I'm guessing you'd have no problem gleaning support.

Winning a debate doesn't mean the winner is right.

The point of the OP is to assume that the judging is objective/logical. That they don't bring their preconceptions to the round. If you continuously lose to this objective panel...

An unrealistic, and extravogant expectation to make such an assumption anywhere in life. Do you get what group think means?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 4:55:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 7:37:29 AM, Sieben wrote:
So even if you can't prove to other people (objective judges) that you're correct, you still believe you're right? This sounds like the faith based approach.

Some would concede, and others would complain that the objective judges were not in fact objective.
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 5:11:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 4:41:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2011 7:36:09 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 6/8/2011 2:57:23 AM, innomen wrote:
No, I wouldn't resign my beliefs if I am confident that my beliefs are correct. It's likely that I am just debating superior debaters, or am being judged by those who are incapable of breaking through their own head trash to see another side. If you hold a minority opinion, but the overall group think is against you, and even though the voters believe they are voting fairly, you will still most likely lose. Do you think JKenyon would have the same win record if he were among hardcore socialists that were actually able to speak coherently to their cause? I don't think so, and that takes nothing away from Kenyon's ability, but it just speaks to the group think that exists in a given context.

A couple months ago you held a position on the number of Jews that died in the holocaust, and you raised legitimate points. However, the group think is against you in most cases, but if you were on an Islamic website, or some neo Nazi website, I'm guessing you'd have no problem gleaning support.

Winning a debate doesn't mean the winner is right.

The point of the OP is to assume that the judging is objective/logical. That they don't bring their preconceptions to the round. If you continuously lose to this objective panel...

An unrealistic, and extravogant expectation to make such an assumption anywhere in life. Do you get what group think means?

Did you get what "objective/logical" means?

I am not interested in the probability of this really occurring. It is a thought experiment to investigate whether people have a faith-based approach to politics.
Things that are so interesting:

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