Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

RFD for open border debate

thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The debate can be found here. It was between 16k/ResponsiblyIrresponsible and Roy: http://www.debate.org...

So, straight up the biggest problem with the Pro case was a failure to differentiate between immigration benefits that occur under the status quo and benefits that would occur from an open border policy. The Pro teams gives a LOT of numbers and statistics, but they simply don't establish a coherent framework for what an open border US would actually look like, so most of the time I'm left to scratch my head and wonder how these numbers would play out in the Pro world. This was really bugging me, so I decided to look specifically for impacts and citations referring to open borders. In Pros R2, I found exactly one, and that was a projection based on open borders the world over, rather than a US specific policy.

Pro, your team gains some impact by immigration being good in the status quo, but you spent WAY too much time on this instead of articulating, specifically, why an open border policy would ALSO have good impacts. It just does not follow that because current levels of immigration are good, unlimited immigration will be good. This is a MAJOR strategic error that makes it extremely hard to vote Pro.

Roy does not make this mistake and begins by immediately painting a picture of what an open border policy would look like. Roy argues that with generous US social policies--free healthcare at emergency rooms, free public schooling, unemployment insurance, and welfare assistance within a few years--there is a massive incentive for individuals to come to the United States even if job prospects look bleak. Roy explains that there are 60 million refugees who would almost certainly come to the US, and if they were not able to afford the journey themselves, charity organizations and other countries who have to handle them would be eager to foot the bill. Moreover, Roy cites that 1.1 billion people would like to permanently leave their current country to go somewhere else. We can quibble about numbers, but without a doubt extremely large numbers will make their way to our shores. Roy argues these are not the educated, skilled immigrants we are used to but rather typically poor, uneducated, and even non-English speaking. This is the major impact coming off of Roys case. We'll be swamped.

From the cases, I'm leaning towards Roy but the rebuttals are what really sealed the deal for me.

Pros first rebuttal simply is not very compelling. The free market critique is ridiculous because extensive social policies provide nonmarket incentives. Pro claims that instead of 1.1 billion people moving the the US, we will instead get...165 million. This is the LOWEST number offered throughout the ENTIRE debate. Pro argues that this number will actually be somewhat smaller but even cutting that number in half constitutes an influx of over a quarter of our current population occurring all at once. It's simple common sense that this would be overwhelming as Roy hits in his next rebuttal. He puts it best when he says that "It's not remotely plausible that adding 60 million refugees would boost the economy." Again, we can quibble with the numbers but there's no doubting that significant numbers would come and stretch our infrastructure to its breaking point. Given that Pro failed to really demonstrate how *open borders* would be good just because the *status quo* is good, they have very little to outweigh this. The argument that the new arrivals would pay for themselves via economic growth has SOME merit but given the nebulous nature of the empirical debate (since, as Roy pointed out, open borders have never been attempted and all of Pros impacts refer to legal immigration) I have no clue to what extent they would pay for themselves. Roy gives compelling reasons to believe that for enough of them it would not be very much. That Pro has to resort to dishonestly arguing that a system of immigration quotas would be "open borders" to rebut Roys case demonstrates to me more than anything just how compelling the argument is.

Roy neatly takes out the entire Pro case in his rebuttal when he argues that the results of legal immigration do not justify the changes in the status quo Pro wants. He makes several response showing just how flawed the "legal immigration is good therefore all immigration is good" assumption is, which is enough to take out almost all of the Pro impacts. After I read Roys rebuttal I went back to try and find some Pro impacts that did not rely on this assumption and there really weren't any.

Round four for both sides was really just a wrap up although Pro seemed to be on the run at this point. Both Pros rebuttal rounds but especially round four really grasped at straws to try and prove Roy wrong on anything. For example, Pro spent a paragraph attacking one sentence Roy made about muslim immigrants, or accusing Roy of "dropping" several arguments (as if it would be even possible to address every one of Pros impacts individually)--like I said there's a lack of vision from the Pro team throughout the entire debate. It's too much to ask for the judge to string together dozens of disparate impacts that may or may not even apply. The arguments PRO dropped, and that Roy extends, such as charities and countries being willing to ship millions of refugees here are much more persuasive.

Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot.

Were this a debate under the old system I would give conduct to Con because the Pro team committed three violations: a) They never asked Roy if it was okay to post their innumerable sources in an outside format b) They dishonestly tried to argue that "open borders" means something that's not open borders and c) After another user posted his *opinion* (not even a vote) in the comments section, the Pro team together made 9 comments arguing for their position outside of the debate.

Pro signed their death warrant on this debate when they declined to argue for open borders in an abstract, free market utopian America and opted to leave all other policies the same. As Roy proved, our generous welfare policies would provide a significant pull factor that leads to unsustainable costs.

Pro is a good and clearly well researched team, but several strategic errors cause what may have been a closely fought debate to be not that difficult of a decision.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:57:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
The debate can be found here. It was between 16k/ResponsiblyIrresponsible and Roy: http://www.debate.org...

So, straight up the biggest problem with the Pro case was a failure to differentiate between immigration benefits that occur under the status quo and benefits that would occur from an open border policy. The Pro teams gives a LOT of numbers and statistics, but they simply don't establish a coherent framework for what an open border US would actually look like, so most of the time I'm left to scratch my head and wonder how these numbers would play out in the Pro world. This was really bugging me, so I decided to look specifically for impacts and citations referring to open borders. In Pros R2, I found exactly one, and that was a projection based on open borders the world over, rather than a US specific policy.

Pro, your team gains some impact by immigration being good in the status quo, but you spent WAY too much time on this instead of articulating, specifically, why an open border policy would ALSO have good impacts. It just does not follow that because current levels of immigration are good, unlimited immigration will be good. This is a MAJOR strategic error that makes it extremely hard to vote Pro.

Roy does not make this mistake and begins by immediately painting a picture of what an open border policy would look like. Roy argues that with generous US social policies--free healthcare at emergency rooms, free public schooling, unemployment insurance, and welfare assistance within a few years--there is a massive incentive for individuals to come to the United States even if job prospects look bleak. Roy explains that there are 60 million refugees who would almost certainly come to the US, and if they were not able to afford the journey themselves, charity organizations and other countries who have to handle them would be eager to foot the bill. Moreover, Roy cites that 1.1 billion people would like to permanently leave their current country to go somewhere else. We can quibble about numbers, but without a doubt extremely large numbers will make their way to our shores. Roy argues these are not the educated, skilled immigrants we are used to but rather typically poor, uneducated, and even non-English speaking. This is the major impact coming off of Roys case. We'll be swamped.

From the cases, I'm leaning towards Roy but the rebuttals are what really sealed the deal for me.

Pros first rebuttal simply is not very compelling. The free market critique is ridiculous because extensive social policies provide nonmarket incentives. Pro claims that instead of 1.1 billion people moving the the US, we will instead get...165 million. This is the LOWEST number offered throughout the ENTIRE debate. Pro argues that this number will actually be somewhat smaller but even cutting that number in half constitutes an influx of over a quarter of our current population occurring all at once. It's simple common sense that this would be overwhelming as Roy hits in his next rebuttal. He puts it best when he says that "It's not remotely plausible that adding 60 million refugees would boost the economy." Again, we can quibble with the numbers but there's no doubting that significant numbers would come and stretch our infrastructure to its breaking point. Given that Pro failed to really demonstrate how *open borders* would be good just because the *status quo* is good, they have very little to outweigh this. The argument that the new arrivals would pay for themselves via economic growth has SOME merit but given the nebulous nature of the empirical debate (since, as Roy pointed out, open borders have never been attempted and all of Pros impacts refer to legal immigration) I have no clue to what extent they would pay for themselves. Roy gives compelling reasons to believe that for enough of them it would not be very much. That Pro has to resort to dishonestly arguing that a system of immigration quotas would be "open borders" to rebut Roys case demonstrates to me more than anything just how compelling the argument is.

Roy neatly takes out the entire Pro case in his rebuttal when he argues that the results of legal immigration do not justify the changes in the status quo Pro wants. He makes several response showing just how flawed the "legal immigration is good therefore all immigration is good" assumption is, which is enough to take out almost all of the Pro impacts. After I read Roys rebuttal I went back to try and find some Pro impacts that did not rely on this assumption and there really weren't any.

Round four for both sides was really just a wrap up although Pro seemed to be on the run at this point. Both Pros rebuttal rounds but especially round four really grasped at straws to try and prove Roy wrong on anything. For example, Pro spent a paragraph attacking one sentence Roy made about muslim immigrants, or accusing Roy of "dropping" several arguments (as if it would be even possible to address every one of Pros impacts individually)--like I said there's a lack of vision from the Pro team throughout the entire debate. It's too much to ask for the judge to string together dozens of disparate impacts that may or may not even apply. The arguments PRO dropped, and that Roy extends, such as charities and countries being willing to ship millions of refugees here are much more persuasive.

Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot.

Were this a debate under the old system I would give conduct to Con because the Pro team committed three violations: a) They never asked Roy if it was okay to post their innumerable sources in an outside format b) They dishonestly tried to argue that "open borders" means something that's not open borders and c) After another user posted his *opinion* (not even a vote) in the comments section, the Pro team together made 9 comments arguing for their position outside of the debate.

Pro signed their death warrant on this debate when they declined to argue for open borders in an abstract, free market utopian America and opted to leave all other policies the same. As Roy proved, our generous welfare policies would provide a significant pull factor that leads to unsustainable costs.

Pro is a good and clearly well researched team, but several strategic errors cause what may have been a closely fought debate to be not that difficult of a decision.

F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).

Lol well I'm sure the debaters would prefer a longer analysis and this is for them ultimately, but for all observers, here's the tl;dr version:

"Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot."
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).

Lol well I'm sure the debaters would prefer a longer analysis and this is for them ultimately, but for all observers, here's the tl;dr version:

"Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot."

So, on the issue itself, not the debate (you thought con was better), which did you think was better?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:31:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:25:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).

Lol well I'm sure the debaters would prefer a longer analysis and this is for them ultimately, but for all observers, here's the tl;dr version:

"Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot."

So, on the issue itself, not the debate (you thought con was better), which did you think was better?

I don't think there's a good case to be made for having an open border policy and keeping the welfare state, and I think Pro shot themselves in the foot when they argued for open borders in the status quo. Open borders in general...I really think that in order for them to function we would have to be in such a radically different world than we are in now (like almost an entirely free market) that I don't think it's feasible even if it was desirable.

But I don't think I let my personal opinion effect my judgement of the debate
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:36:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:31:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:25:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).

Lol well I'm sure the debaters would prefer a longer analysis and this is for them ultimately, but for all observers, here's the tl;dr version:

"Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot."

So, on the issue itself, not the debate (you thought con was better), which did you think was better?

I don't think there's a good case to be made for having an open border policy and keeping the welfare state, and I think Pro shot themselves in the foot when they argued for open borders in the status quo. Open borders in general...I really think that in order for them to function we would have to be in such a radically different world than we are in now (like almost an entirely free market) that I don't think it's feasible even if it was desirable.

But I don't think I let my personal opinion effect my judgement of the debate

So, do people on here like you vote on debates based on how well they argued it or on who they think is right? I think I will always do the latter, why does the former even matter?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:40:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:31:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:25:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).

Lol well I'm sure the debaters would prefer a longer analysis and this is for them ultimately, but for all observers, here's the tl;dr version:

"Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot."

So, on the issue itself, not the debate (you thought con was better), which did you think was better?

I don't think there's a good case to be made for having an open border policy and keeping the welfare state, and I think Pro shot themselves in the foot when they argued for open borders in the status quo. Open borders in general...I really think that in order for them to function we would have to be in such a radically different world than we are in now (like almost an entirely free market) that I don't think it's feasible even if it was desirable.

But I don't think I let my personal opinion effect my judgement of the debate

I'm going to have to do this for my next RFD. Breaking up long RFDs into around 12, 2k word blocks to fit into the comments is pretty annoying. Hopefully I can get that changed in the future regarding voting in general, but in the meantime this RFDs in threads posting thing I've noticed seems to be the way to go.

Btw, excellent RFD, I'll have to check out this debate at some point.

I also tend to agree with your point of view on this issue.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:48:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:36:11 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:31:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:25:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:19:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
F*ck me! You write a lot! I was gonna comment something relevant but I ain't gonna read all that AND the debate!

Shorten your point and I might reply (god, that sounds arrogant).

Lol well I'm sure the debaters would prefer a longer analysis and this is for them ultimately, but for all observers, here's the tl;dr version:

"Ultimately, I vote Con because the Pro case does not paint a clear enough picture of what an open borders policy would like to have any solid impacts to outweigh Roys common sense impacts. I do think that Pro makes *some* good arguments and rebuttals, but the lack of vision carries over into the entire debate. Pro will read this and think I'm being too harsh on them, but the fact is I can't see what is in their heads and they simply did not craft a narrative at all of what an open border policy would look like. Roy poked more than enough holes in an open border policy to justify a Con ballot."

So, on the issue itself, not the debate (you thought con was better), which did you think was better?

I don't think there's a good case to be made for having an open border policy and keeping the welfare state, and I think Pro shot themselves in the foot when they argued for open borders in the status quo. Open borders in general...I really think that in order for them to function we would have to be in such a radically different world than we are in now (like almost an entirely free market) that I don't think it's feasible even if it was desirable.

But I don't think I let my personal opinion effect my judgement of the debate

So, do people on here like you vote on debates based on how well they argued it or on who they think is right? I think I will always do the latter, why does the former even matter?

I'm sure Thett will give a great and insightful answer to this, but I'm going to reply also.

Debate is about making the most compelling arguments, and voters should vote on who made the most compelling arguments - not the side they agree with.

If voters do the latter, they don't even need to read the debate and they can just vote for Pro because they agree with their stance. This really does defeat the whole purpose of debate, and it's worth mentioning that ideological voting (simply voting up the side who you agree with) is generally viewed as very poor etiquette around here. All votes using the default system require an RFD explaining why you voted for the side that you did (and why you awarded the points that you did). If you simply say, "I agree with Pro", then your vote will be removed and your voting privileges likely will be as well.

Rather than approaching voting as described above, it's worth looking into the arguments each side made and considering why it is or isn't compelling when considering the resolution of the debate. It's best to leave all of your preconceptions and personal opinions at the door, and simply look at what each debater says, and then make a determination, simply based on those arguments, who made the best case for their particular side.

As I said at the start, debate is all about making good arguments. Some of the best debaters here can take very unpopular position that very few people actually agree with, and yet make convincing enough arguments to, at least in the debate, convince people that their position was superior to their opponent. This doesn't mean you'll agree with the position they took, just that they made better arguments.

In any case, voting is all about providing feedback to the debaters about the debate itself and determining who made better arguments. Not about simply stating which side took the position you already agreed with.

I hope this response helped in some way.
Debate.org Moderator
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:56:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm sure Thett will give a great and insightful answer to this, but I'm going to reply also.

Debate is about making the most compelling arguments, and voters should vote on who made the most compelling arguments - not the side they agree with.

If voters do the latter, they don't even need to read the debate and they can just vote for Pro because they agree with their stance. This really does defeat the whole purpose of debate, and it's worth mentioning that ideological voting (simply voting up the side who you agree with) is generally viewed as very poor etiquette around here. All votes using the default system require an RFD explaining why you voted for the side that you did (and why you awarded the points that you did). If you simply say, "I agree with Pro", then your vote will be removed and your voting privileges likely will be as well.

Rather than approaching voting as described above, it's worth looking into the arguments each side made and considering why it is or isn't compelling when considering the resolution of the debate. It's best to leave all of your preconceptions and personal opinions at the door, and simply look at what each debater says, and then make a determination, simply based on those arguments, who made the best case for their particular side.

As I said at the start, debate is all about making good arguments. Some of the best debaters here can take very unpopular position that very few people actually agree with, and yet make convincing enough arguments to, at least in the debate, convince people that their position was superior to their opponent. This doesn't mean you'll agree with the position they took, just that they made better arguments.

In any case, voting is all about providing feedback to the debaters about the debate itself and determining who made better arguments. Not about simply stating which side took the position you already agreed with.

I hope this response helped in some way.

My position would be that you keep an open mind, understand and read each of their debates and come to a conclusion yourself about what it is you believe. If you have been convinced otherwise or if your views have remained the same, then vote for the one you agree with.

Debate has a purpose. It is not debating for the sake of debating. It is to convince someone of your point of view. The way Intelligence squared debates decide who won is to see how many people changed their opinions from the start to finish. That is for professional debates though, for ones about government policy and elections, it should entirely be about the ideas themselves and each person should have their own view and vote for the side supporting their own view not on the one who can speak more eloquently!
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:25:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:56:01 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
I'm sure Thett will give a great and insightful answer to this, but I'm going to reply also.

Debate is about making the most compelling arguments, and voters should vote on who made the most compelling arguments - not the side they agree with.

If voters do the latter, they don't even need to read the debate and they can just vote for Pro because they agree with their stance. This really does defeat the whole purpose of debate, and it's worth mentioning that ideological voting (simply voting up the side who you agree with) is generally viewed as very poor etiquette around here. All votes using the default system require an RFD explaining why you voted for the side that you did (and why you awarded the points that you did). If you simply say, "I agree with Pro", then your vote will be removed and your voting privileges likely will be as well.

Rather than approaching voting as described above, it's worth looking into the arguments each side made and considering why it is or isn't compelling when considering the resolution of the debate. It's best to leave all of your preconceptions and personal opinions at the door, and simply look at what each debater says, and then make a determination, simply based on those arguments, who made the best case for their particular side.

As I said at the start, debate is all about making good arguments. Some of the best debaters here can take very unpopular position that very few people actually agree with, and yet make convincing enough arguments to, at least in the debate, convince people that their position was superior to their opponent. This doesn't mean you'll agree with the position they took, just that they made better arguments.

In any case, voting is all about providing feedback to the debaters about the debate itself and determining who made better arguments. Not about simply stating which side took the position you already agreed with.

I hope this response helped in some way.

My position would be that you keep an open mind, understand and read each of their debates and come to a conclusion yourself about what it is you believe. If you have been convinced otherwise or if your views have remained the same, then vote for the one you agree with.

I think that's fair, though I don't believe it ever needs to come down to your opinion being changed. One can vote against what they personally believe regularly due to the better debater being on the opposing side. In the end your opinion doesn't have to change at all, but the better debater (the person that made better arguments) should be deserving of the vote.

In other words, your personal belief on the topic isn't what matters. In the end it makes no difference whether or not your opinion has changed. What matters is how the debaters approached the topic and made arguments in favor of their side.

You can approach it however you like, but the point is that being fair in voting on debates requires that you aren't looking for a way to conform your vote to your personal views, but rather to what actually occurred within the debate. If this happens to mean that one side convinced you of the validity of their position so that you find it prudent to vote for them, that's fine. But that would also likely mean that they provided the better arguments and therefore are deserving of being voted for.


Debate has a purpose. It is not debating for the sake of debating. It is to convince someone of your point of view.

In the context of this discussion, I don't necessarily agree with that. I am perfectly fine with voting for someone debating Pro on 1 = 2, if they made more convincing arguments than Con (and it does happen), but they aren't going to convince me to change my point of view on the issue. There are plenty of people who take on the challenge of devils advocate positions, and in those cases it even more important to apply only the arguments made (by either side) to your vote, and not your personal opinions exclusively.

The way Intelligence squared debates decide who won is to see how many people changed their opinions from the start to finish.

I really like the way Intelligence Squared handles voting and I've considered ways in which we could utilize such a thing. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be interesting to try sometime. Nonetheless, it's a different type of thing, and not really applicable. Intelligence Squared votes are simply up/down votes that require no thought or feedback from the voters whatsoever. Here, for the most part, we require voters to provide an actual reason for their decision beyond the simply pressing of a button or an "I agree with Pro".

That is for professional debates though, for ones about government policy and elections, it should entirely be about the ideas themselves and each person should have their own view and vote for the side supporting their own view not on the one who can speak more eloquently!

I agree that the arguments themselves should be the most important aspect and not style or eloquence. Though "convincing" means many things and speech style does convince many people. We do insist on substantive reasons for an RFD on arguments though (precluding things like "Pro had better style" etc), but I think this is a side point.

Debaters often work hard on their debates and as long as a voter gives a decent and honest effort to be fair in judging what actually took place in the debate and provide a reasonable explanation for how they came to the conclusion they did, then it's rare anyone has much of a problem with their vote. On the other hand, people who just want to vote pro/con on whatever issue is being debated simply because they agreed beforehand, do so with a minimum of effort and with almost no explanation for it are very quick to be the least respected voters on this site.
Debate.org Moderator
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:50:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:25:26 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:56:01 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
I'm sure Thett will give a great and insightful answer to this, but I'm going to reply also.

Debate is about making the most compelling arguments, and voters should vote on who made the most compelling arguments - not the side they agree with.

If voters do the latter, they don't even need to read the debate and they can just vote for Pro because they agree with their stance. This really does defeat the whole purpose of debate, and it's worth mentioning that ideological voting (simply voting up the side who you agree with) is generally viewed as very poor etiquette around here. All votes using the default system require an RFD explaining why you voted for the side that you did (and why you awarded the points that you did). If you simply say, "I agree with Pro", then your vote will be removed and your voting privileges likely will be as well.

Rather than approaching voting as described above, it's worth looking into the arguments each side made and considering why it is or isn't compelling when considering the resolution of the debate. It's best to leave all of your preconceptions and personal opinions at the door, and simply look at what each debater says, and then make a determination, simply based on those arguments, who made the best case for their particular side.

As I said at the start, debate is all about making good arguments. Some of the best debaters here can take very unpopular position that very few people actually agree with, and yet make convincing enough arguments to, at least in the debate, convince people that their position was superior to their opponent. This doesn't mean you'll agree with the position they took, just that they made better arguments.

In any case, voting is all about providing feedback to the debaters about the debate itself and determining who made better arguments. Not about simply stating which side took the position you already agreed with.

I hope this response helped in some way.

My position would be that you keep an open mind, understand and read each of their debates and come to a conclusion yourself about what it is you believe. If you have been convinced otherwise or if your views have remained the same, then vote for the one you agree with.

I think that's fair, though I don't believe it ever needs to come down to your opinion being changed. One can vote against what they personally believe regularly due to the better debater being on the opposing side. In the end your opinion doesn't have to change at all, but the better debater (the person that made better arguments) should be deserving of the vote.

In other words, your personal belief on the topic isn't what matters. In the end it makes no difference whether or not your opinion has changed. What matters is how the debaters approached the topic and made arguments in favor of their side.

You can approach it however you like, but the point is that being fair in voting on debates requires that you aren't looking for a way to conform your vote to your personal views, but rather to what actually occurred within the debate. If this happens to mean that one side convinced you of the validity of their position so that you find it prudent to vote for them, that's fine. But that would also likely mean that they provided the better arguments and therefore are deserving of being voted for.


Debate has a purpose. It is not debating for the sake of debating. It is to convince someone of your point of view.

In the context of this discussion, I don't necessarily agree with that. I am perfectly fine with voting for someone debating Pro on 1 = 2, if they made more convincing arguments than Con (and it does happen), but they aren't going to convince me to change my point of view on the issue. There are plenty of people who take on the challenge of devils advocate positions, and in those cases it even more important to apply only the arguments made (by either side) to your vote, and not your personal opinions exclusively.

The way Intelligence squared debates decide who won is to see how many people changed their opinions from the start to finish.

I really like the way Intelligence Squared handles voting and I've considered ways in which we could utilize such a thing. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be interesting to try sometime. Nonetheless, it's a different type of thing, and not really applicable. Intelligence Squared votes are simply up/down votes that require no thought or feedback from the voters whatsoever. Here, for the most part, we require voters to provide an actual reason for their decision beyond the simply pressing of a button or an "I agree with Pro".

That is for professional debates though, for ones about government policy and elections, it should entirely be about the ideas themselves and each person should have their own view and vote for the side supporting their own view not on the one who can speak more eloquently!

I agree that the arguments themselves should be the most important aspect and not style or eloquence. Though "convincing" means many things and speech style does convince many people. We do insist on substantive reasons for an RFD on arguments though (precluding things like "Pro had better style" etc), but I think this is a side point.

Debaters often work hard on their debates and as long as a voter gives a decent and honest effort to be fair in judging what actually took place in the debate and provide a reasonable explanation for how they came to the conclusion they did, then it's rare anyone has much of a problem with their vote. On the other hand, people who just want to vote pro/con on whatever issue is being debated simply because they agreed beforehand, do so with a minimum of effort and with almost no explanation for it are very quick to be the least respected voters on this site.

I guess I should vote my way on "opinions" and your way on "debates".
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 4:01:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 2:07:36 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
TL;DR: I voted against Pro because furriners talk funny and omg they take our jobzzz.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 5:06:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:57:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
The debate can be found here. It was between 16k/ResponsiblyIrresponsible and Roy: http://www.debate.org...

So, straight up the biggest problem with the Pro case was a failure to differentiate between immigration benefits that occur under the status quo and benefits that would occur from an open border policy.

Yeah, seriously... almost all of Pro's R1 was a string of nonsensical statistics that were totally irrelevant to open borders. There was no reason to believe that they would extend outside of the status quo at all - Pro didn't even attempt to give one.

Yet another example of how statistics are meaningless without being able to tie them to the resolution.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 9:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:56:01 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:

My position would be that you keep an open mind, understand and read each of their debates and come to a conclusion yourself about what it is you believe. If you have been convinced otherwise or if your views have remained the same, then vote for the one you agree with.

For most people, their opinions are rather fixed. Even if you keep an open-mind, it is hard not to be biased in favor of your beliefs, esp. ones that are strongly held. So, if you strongly believe, for example, that abortion is wrong, and you read a debate about abortion, you may find the pro-choice debater's arguments unconvincing. This is unfair to the pro-choice debater, because you're making it more difficult for him to win than for the pro-life debater to win. Whoever argues against your original beliefs is facing an uphill battle, and whoever argues in favor of your original beliefs is facing a downhill battle. When it is inherently more difficult for one debater to earn your vote than it is for another, the system you are employing is unfair and incorrect. Both debaters should be situated on equal ground.

The best way to situate a debate on equal ground is to evaluate things in a vacuum, as if you had no opinions on the subject in question. Whether or not your beliefs changed at the end, you should vote for the best performing debater in the vacuum, not based on the way your beliefs are placed after the debate.

Debate has a purpose. It is not debating for the sake of debating. It is to convince someone of your point of view.

I would disagree that this is necessarily the overriding point of debate. Many debate for fun. Others debate to learn about the subject material. Others debate to develop their writing or rhetorical skills. Others debate to test ideas. The idea is that debate has a litany of possible purposes and that we cannot assign primacy to any one purpose because all purposes have subjective value.

The way Intelligence squared debates decide who won is to see how many people changed their opinions from the start to finish.

That's on the BBC, right? Those debates are not analogous to DDO debates, because--while they are "debates"--they are not competitive and do not result in rankings and so forth. The voting for IQ2 debates is imprecise and lacks finesse, and is more adopted for its simplicity than anything else.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...