Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

RFD: Legalize all drugs (Tej v. Fire)

YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
I. Debate: http://www.debate.org...

II. Resolution: "The United States should legalize all drugs."

III. Procedural Matters:

The resolution says that "the United States should legalize all drugs." Since this is a debate between relatively younger members, I'll explain what the resolution requires: (1) it's about the United States, so, no impact outside the United States is going to count; (2) it is not specific to the federal government, which is a good thing because the more general statement implies both the federal government and the states, preempting any discussion of the complexities of federalism issues; (3) the resolution is about "all" drugs and not just some specific drugs(s)... all of them; (4) legalize, however, narrows the scope, because we're only going to "legalize" those drugs which are currently illegal.

The resolution uses normative language ("should" in this instance) cluing any competent judge to realize that this is a normative debate, meaning that the burdens of persuasion (not proof, in this instance; to talk of burdens of "proof" in a normative context would be absurd) are identical, congruent, and/or not greater or weaker than the other. To do otherwise would be to offend the very purpose and function of normative debate. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong and/or incompetent, as a judge. There is a common--and horribly wrong--misunderstanding with respect to what impact the "status quo" has on the debate. There are some--stupid--judges who believe that the "status quo" is self justifying to such an extent that he who defends it enjoys a lesser burden than he who challenges it. This is obviously absurd, for reasons that any reasonably intelligent middle schooler could ascertain: it is to impute bias in favor of one position, at the expense of the other, for the arbitrary reason that a whole bunch of people may agree with something... and as we all learned in elementary school, ad populum appeals (which are inherent within the "self justifying status quo" model of the BOP) are fallacious, because the fact that a whole bunch of people think something has no impact on whether it's the right thing to do or not.

IV. Arguments

PRO's argument begins by framing the resolution in the context of what the government's utilitarian function is, proscribing therefore, what the government ought to do: protect individual liberty. PRO's standard for government's legitimate function is the government's maximizing liberty, to the extent possible, without compromising order. However, there is a breakdown between PRO's framing what a government legitimately can do, and why making drugs illegal is beyond that scope. We have the claim and warrant, but the link is missing to the impact. PRO later discusses the many negative impacts of keeping drugs illegal: (1) ease of access to children; (2) criminal networks; (3) wasted resources. He contends, similarly, that in a world where all drugs are legal, that: (1) lives would be saved; (2) resources would be not wasted; (3) crime would be reduced on many levels for many reasons; and (4) (children?). (This is basically FT's case... shocking, lol.)

CON correctly explains, more or less, his burden; and discusses a drug which is currently legal: nicotine. This has no impact on CON's BOP, because nicotine is not illegal. People smoke cigarettes, dip tobacco, and consume tobacco products in many other ways all the time, with the full sanction of the law. (As luck would have it, The second hand impact indirectly supports CON's point that legalizing would not lead to abuse, because, in the case of nicotine, tobacco use has consistently been on the decline in the US for the past three decades.) CON's second argument, and really his third point as well, which was functionally a sub contention of the second part of his second argument, (charitably reconstructed) is that the economy will suffer because drugs will be abused at higher rates, thereby imposing unneeded waste. (This is in direct conflict with PRO's point that the status quo is, by its nature tremendously wasteful. As a judge, I weigh waste of the status quo in enforcement and incarceration against medical costs. PRO has hard numbers, and it requires less mental gymnastics for me to give PRO this point.) In rebuttal, CON also assumes that legalizing will mean increased abuse, which, given his instance of Nicotine, is unpersuasive (because he provides me with a case where a drug which is currently legal is on the decline in its use despite being legal, undermining the necessity of making drugs illegal to curtail their use -a point which PRO articulated, sort of, in rebuttal in later rounds).

V. Outcome

As a judge there were two meaningful areas of argumentative clash: (1) relating to what the government ought to do (where PRO argued liberty and CON argued for government protecting people CON's nicotine example undermines his idea that people need to be protected from harm, and it does not advance his BOP because nicotine is legal. PRO had a missing link, but the argument at least supported his BOP); and (2) relating to benefits and costs of legalizing all drugs (where PRO argued that enforcement and incarceration lead to waste and more crime, supported by hard numbers, and CON spoke only with respect to mainly unsubstantiated individual health impacts). First area of clash goes to PRO because it more directly supported his BOP than CON; second area of clash goes to PRO because he more clearly indicated the specific benefits and harms to society in general, thereby more directly advancing his BOP.

Clear win for PRO.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:58:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I. Debate: http://www.debate.org...

II. Resolution: "The United States should legalize all drugs."

III. Procedural Matters:

The resolution says that "the United States should legalize all drugs." Since this is a debate between relatively younger members, I'll explain what the resolution requires: (1) it's about the United States, so, no impact outside the United States is going to count; (2) it is not specific to the federal government, which is a good thing because the more general statement implies both the federal government and the states, preempting any discussion of the complexities of federalism issues; (3) the resolution is about "all" drugs and not just some specific drugs(s)... all of them; (4) legalize, however, narrows the scope, because we're only going to "legalize" those drugs which are currently illegal.

The resolution uses normative language ("should" in this instance) cluing any competent judge to realize that this is a normative debate, meaning that the burdens of persuasion (not proof, in this instance; to talk of burdens of "proof" in a normative context would be absurd) are identical, congruent, and/or not greater or weaker than the other. To do otherwise would be to offend the very purpose and function of normative debate. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong and/or incompetent, as a judge. There is a common--and horribly wrong--misunderstanding with respect to what impact the "status quo" has on the debate. There are some--stupid--judges who believe that the "status quo" is self justifying to such an extent that he who defends it enjoys a lesser burden than he who challenges it. This is obviously absurd, for reasons that any reasonably intelligent middle schooler could ascertain: it is to impute bias in favor of one position, at the expense of the other, for the arbitrary reason that a whole bunch of people may agree with something... and as we all learned in elementary school, ad populum appeals (which are inherent within the "self justifying status quo" model of the BOP) are fallacious, because the fact that a whole bunch of people think something has no impact on whether it's the right thing to do or not.

This is essentially the same justification I gave for the burdens being shared, lol. I even said "there's no burden of proof, only a burden of persuasion."


IV. Arguments

PRO's argument begins by framing the resolution in the context of what the government's utilitarian function is, proscribing therefore, what the government ought to do: protect individual liberty. PRO's standard for government's legitimate function is the government's maximizing liberty, to the extent possible, without compromising order. However, there is a breakdown between PRO's framing what a government legitimately can do, and why making drugs illegal is beyond that scope. We have the claim and warrant, but the link is missing to the impact.

The argument was basically that there are no other regarding harms to drugs, and that the government should only legislate based on prevention of other regarding harms; therefore, the government should not make drug legislation except with regards to intellectual maturity in choosing to do drugs (re: age limit)...though admittedly, I should have better articulated the impact if the government doesn't follow the harm principle. I did say that there's no government legitimacy if the harm principle isn't followed, so that would only result in illegitimate government (the reason for which people consent to government is to prevent "other regarding" harms). Maybe I should have expanded on that.

PRO later discusses the many negative impacts of keeping drugs illegal: (1) ease of access to children; (2) criminal networks; (3) wasted resources. He contends, similarly, that in a world where all drugs are legal, that: (1) lives would be saved; (2) resources would be not wasted; (3) crime would be reduced on many levels for many reasons; and (4) (children?). (This is basically FT's case... shocking, lol.)

No, it isn't...he didn't mention crime, the Mexican Drug War, criminal networks, or children in his case, as I recall (though I only read his debate on drug legalization with Yonko; maybe he changed his case). Nor did he mention the economic advantages. Nothing I said except the harm principle is even used by FT (in his debate with Yonko; as I said, I didn't read his other debates).


CON correctly explains, more or less, his burden; and discusses a drug which is currently legal: nicotine. This has no impact on CON's BOP, because nicotine is not illegal. People smoke cigarettes, dip tobacco, and consume tobacco products in many other ways all the time, with the full sanction of the law. (As luck would have it, The second hand impact indirectly supports CON's point that legalizing would not lead to abuse, because, in the case of nicotine, tobacco use has consistently been on the decline in the US for the past three decades.) CON's second argument, and really his third point as well, which was functionally a sub contention of the second part of his second argument, (charitably reconstructed) is that the economy will suffer because drugs will be abused at higher rates, thereby imposing unneeded waste. (This is in direct conflict with PRO's point that the status quo is, by its nature tremendously wasteful. As a judge, I weigh waste of the status quo in enforcement and incarceration against medical costs. PRO has hard numbers, and it requires less mental gymnastics for me to give PRO this point.) In rebuttal, CON also assumes that legalizing will mean increased abuse, which, given his instance of Nicotine, is unpersuasive (because he provides me with a case where a drug which is currently legal is on the decline in its use despite being legal, undermining the necessity of making drugs illegal to curtail their use -a point which PRO articulated, sort of, in rebuttal in later rounds).

V. Outcome

As a judge there were two meaningful areas of argumentative clash: (1) relating to what the government ought to do (where PRO argued liberty and CON argued for government protecting people CON's nicotine example undermines his idea that people need to be protected from harm, and it does not advance his BOP because nicotine is legal. PRO had a missing link, but the argument at least supported his BOP); and (2) relating to benefits and costs of legalizing all drugs (where PRO argued that enforcement and incarceration lead to waste and more crime, supported by hard numbers, and CON spoke only with respect to mainly unsubstantiated individual health impacts). First area of clash goes to PRO because it more directly supported his BOP than CON; second area of clash goes to PRO because he more clearly indicated the specific benefits and harms to society in general, thereby more directly advancing his BOP.

Clear win for PRO.

IMO the point that drug use would reduce under legalization basically acts as an internal link turn to the entire case that Con presents, so Con's own case fails to act at all; so, since there's no other regarding harm, wouldn't the harm principle mean a default vote for Pro (since Con doesn't challenge the harm principle except via his secondhand impact offense)?

But the analysis is great. Thanks for the RFD, YYW. I really appreciate it. Could you give me some places where I could have improved in the debate?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 4:04:28 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I. Debate: http://www.debate.org...

II. Resolution: "The United States should legalize all drugs."

III. Procedural Matters:

The resolution says that "the United States should legalize all drugs." Since this is a debate between relatively younger members, I'll explain what the resolution requires: (1) it's about the United States, so, no impact outside the United States is going to count; (2) it is not specific to the federal government, which is a good thing because the more general statement implies both the federal government and the states, preempting any discussion of the complexities of federalism issues; (3) the resolution is about "all" drugs and not just some specific drugs(s)... all of them; (4) legalize, however, narrows the scope, because we're only going to "legalize" those drugs which are currently illegal.

The resolution uses normative language ("should" in this instance) cluing any competent judge to realize that this is a normative debate, meaning that the burdens of persuasion (not proof, in this instance; to talk of burdens of "proof" in a normative context would be absurd) are identical, congruent, and/or not greater or weaker than the other. To do otherwise would be to offend the very purpose and function of normative debate. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong and/or incompetent, as a judge. There is a common--and horribly wrong--misunderstanding with respect to what impact the "status quo" has on the debate. There are some--stupid--judges who believe that the "status quo" is self justifying to such an extent that he who defends it enjoys a lesser burden than he who challenges it. This is obviously absurd, for reasons that any reasonably intelligent middle schooler could ascertain: it is to impute bias in favor of one position, at the expense of the other, for the arbitrary reason that a whole bunch of people may agree with something... and as we all learned in elementary school, ad populum appeals (which are inherent within the "self justifying status quo" model of the BOP) are fallacious, because the fact that a whole bunch of people think something has no impact on whether it's the right thing to do or not.

IV. Arguments

PRO's argument begins by framing the resolution in the context of what the government's utilitarian function is, proscribing therefore, what the government ought to do: protect individual liberty. PRO's standard for government's legitimate function is the government's maximizing liberty, to the extent possible, without compromising order. However, there is a breakdown between PRO's framing what a government legitimately can do, and why making drugs illegal is beyond that scope. We have the claim and warrant, but the link is missing to the impact. PRO later discusses the many negative impacts of keeping drugs illegal: (1) ease of access to children; (2) criminal networks; (3) wasted resources. He contends, similarly, that in a world where all drugs are legal, that: (1) lives would be saved; (2) resources would be not wasted; (3) crime would be reduced on many levels for many reasons; and (4) (children?). (This is basically FT's case... shocking, lol.)

CON correctly explains, more or less, his burden; and discusses a drug which is currently legal: nicotine. This has no impact on CON's BOP, because nicotine is not illegal. People smoke cigarettes, dip tobacco, and consume tobacco products in many other ways all the time, with the full sanction of the law. (As luck would have it, The second hand impact indirectly supports CON's point that legalizing would not lead to abuse, because, in the case of nicotine, tobacco use has consistently been on the decline in the US for the past three decades.) CON's second argument, and really his third point as well, which was functionally a sub contention of the second part of his second argument, (charitably reconstructed) is that the economy will suffer because drugs will be abused at higher rates, thereby imposing unneeded waste. (This is in direct conflict with PRO's point that the status quo is, by its nature tremendously wasteful. As a judge, I weigh waste of the status quo in enforcement and incarceration against medical costs. PRO has hard numbers, and it requires less mental gymnastics for me to give PRO this point.) In rebuttal, CON also assumes that legalizing will mean increased abuse, which, given his instance of Nicotine, is unpersuasive (because he provides me with a case where a drug which is currently legal is on the decline in its use despite being legal, undermining the necessity of making drugs illegal to curtail their use -a point which PRO articulated, sort of, in rebuttal in later rounds).

V. Outcome

As a judge there were two meaningful areas of argumentative clash: (1) relating to what the government ought to do (where PRO argued liberty and CON argued for government protecting people CON's nicotine example undermines his idea that people need to be protected from harm, and it does not advance his BOP because nicotine is legal. PRO had a missing link, but the argument at least supported his BOP); and (2) relating to benefits and costs of legalizing all drugs (where PRO argued that enforcement and incarceration lead to waste and more crime, supported by hard numbers, and CON spoke only with respect to mainly unsubstantiated individual health impacts). First area of clash goes to PRO because it more directly supported his BOP than CON; second area of clash goes to PRO because he more clearly indicated the specific benefits and harms to society in general, thereby more directly advancing his BOP.

Clear win for PRO.

Thanks for the RFD, YYW.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 4:09:50 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 3:58:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:

But the analysis is great. Thanks for the RFD, YYW. I really appreciate it. Could you give me some places where I could have improved in the debate?

Yeah, can you give us some feedback of were we could improve in the debate?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

LOL @ the FT thing
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 4:15:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

LOL @ the FT thing

I said nothing FT said except the harm principle -_-
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:05:42 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 4:15:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

LOL @ the FT thing

I said nothing FT said except the harm principle -_-

It's ok even if you did. What matters is less what your initial case is, than how you sustain the points throughout.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:41:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 4:09:50 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:58:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:

But the analysis is great. Thanks for the RFD, YYW. I really appreciate it. Could you give me some places where I could have improved in the debate?

Yeah, can you give us some feedback of were we could improve in the debate?

At 12/5/2015 4:09:50 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:58:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:

But the analysis is great. Thanks for the RFD, YYW. I really appreciate it. Could you give me some places where I could have improved in the debate?

Yeah, can you give us some feedback of were we could improve in the debate?

I'll give general feedback, sure.

Feedback, to both debaters:

The whole way to succeed in any debate is to correctly understand both (1) the resolution, and (2) what your burden of proof is. Each word in the resolution matters; so, in this instance, when we're talking about "legalizing all drugs" then you've got to think about "ok, well what kind of drugs would be legalized?" The only drugs that could be legalized (which are not already legalized) are the ones which are already *illegal*. Now, you can certainly talk about current drugs that are both legal, and presently abused, to show that legalization can lead to abuse... but that only holds is if you can also show that the same drugs would be used at a lesser rate if illegal.

The common problem that I see with most debaters, in this and in virtually every other debate I've judged on this site, is the tendency for debaters to make assumptions about the world that they shouldn't. For example, the assumption that if drugs are illegal, then people will use them less; and the other side of that assumption, which rings to the general tune that "people will not use drugs less when drugs are legal." The problem is that that assumption just doesn't hold (logically, or even commonsensically). You've got to show evidence of (e.g. statistical patterns of drug use in both regimes) how people use specific drugs (not drugs generally) in both worlds to then make the causal argument that a particular drug's status as legal or otherwise has some bearing on the same drug's tendency to be used or abused. So, that's a "missing warrant" issue.

There's another issue, which is the "missing link between warrant and impact" issue which I saw as well. As a judge, I can't make assumptions about the world beyond what a reasonable person already knows. Only inept judges claim to be tabula rasa judges (tabula rasa judging entertains the fiction that the judge's mind is a blank slate when he undertakes the evaluation). And there are plenty of judges who, for instance, at least act like tabula rasa judges when they judge debates. For example, judges act like tabula rasa judges by completely disregarding the plain language of the resolution and getting caught in perverse and circuitous ramblings which deviate entirely from what the debate was all about. (However, this is more like a tabula mens judge (latin for "blank mind") because a judge who does that has clearly forgotten how to think). To the extent that any judge regards one debater or another as having made any progress for advocacy of a point that is beyond the scope of the resolution, that judge is incompetent, and it happens all the time... even some of the ostensibly best debaters have the unique tendency to fvck this up (that is because being a debater calls on a different skill set than being a judge, and it's a lot harder to be a judge).

I went on that little tangent about inept judges for the purpose of illustrating what I (as a competent judge) can and can not do. For example, I cannot assume the existence of a link which a debater did not give me to work with. YOU have to connect the dots; I will not do it, and if you don't do it, you will not advance your BOP, because your argument has to be complete. You've got to make a claim, you've got to support that claim, and then you've got to tell me how that claim, sufficiently warranted, supports your BOP.

A lot of judges make "inferences" about what debaters are saying because they get caught up in the stupid trivialities that debaters themselves so often do. You see that typically with these RFD's that a lot of inept judges produce which are the length of Tolstoy novels. They get caught up in the administrative function of "recording all the little details" whether material (read: important) or not, to the overall debate. But the problem with that is that such judges only do that because they have no idea how to distinguish between, for example, an argument that actually advances a debater's BOP and which does not advance a debater's BOP.

So, that's where you go bad from the get go... if a judge can't get the fvcking BOP right (and by "get the BOP right" I mean "know the difference between an argument that supports the resolution or opposes the resolution, and which has no bearing on the resolution") then there is virtually no possible way that such a judge can even aspire to producing a coherent RFD. What does that mean? A judge that can't get BOP correct is like a baseball umpire that doesn't know what a pitcher is, and wouldn't recognize a baseball being thrown to the catcher with the purpose of striking out the batter, as a baseball. It's like... that judge shouldn't have even gotten out of bed in the morning, because if you can't even recognize how the game of baseball is played, then you've got no business calling balls and strikes.

But as a debater, you've really got to know your stuff so that you can hold such an incompetent judge's hand through the bulwark of it all. That's really important to be able to do. You've got to be able to hold their hand. By "hold their hand" what I mean is "clearly and plainly lead the judge through why you won." You've got to look to the main areas of clash in the debate, and identify them for the judge, and your final round of argumentation should be something like:

"In this debate, I said X, Y, and Z. My opponent said A, B, and C. I showed X through reasons 1, and 2; Y through reasons 3 and 4; and Z through reasons 5, 6, and 7. My opponent's argument, A, was supported by reasons 8 and 9, but my reasons 1, and 2 negated those reasons. My opponent's argument B was supported by reasons 10, and 11, but my arguments Y and Z overwhelmed that argument's impact (e.g. because the magnitude of my impacts are greater than the magnitude of his impacts). My opponent's argument C was false because it is inconsistent with his prior argument, A, and undermined by the reasons he offered in support of that argument; I also rebutted it with my contention's Y and Z. So, because I'm winning every point, and he's winning no points, I won and he lost. Vote for me."

That's what "crystalizing" a debate looks like. Basically no one on the site (other than thett and Bluesteel) ever got it right that I've seen. That's what you really "need" to both utilize your final round, and to hold the hands of incompetent judges.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:49:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

Well, as is always the case (and was specifically recently the case with a very high profile debate, though I won't say more) there are a plethora of ostensibly skilled debaters who royally fvck up judging... and I tire of it. It literally irks me to see it, because anyone reasonably possessed of any modest intellectual ability can judge any debate on this site correctly. There is no requirement of specialized knowledge, or expertise. It's just learning a method, and applying that method correctly.

The first thing you've got to do is understand the RFD, and know, in your understanding of the RFD, the difference between arguments which are within the RFD's scope, and which arguments are not. Whenever I see a judge entertain a tangential "counterplan" (and counterplans are so poorly incorporated into so many debates that it's pathetic... I feel like I should have a "YYW on how to talk about counterplans!" session), for instance, which is totally irrelevant to the resolution, or in direct conflict with a debater's burden as required by the resolution, I just cringe. It's like this: such a judge is going to essentially say: "to hell with the resolution, I'm going to make my decision on a point irrelevant to it!"

This is basically because people don't know how think conceptually or logically.

So, while in the past I've written RFD's with the expectation that people could "figure out for themselves" how to judge a debate, I have clearly been wrong to the extent that I assumed that people would. (Even vote moderation, and applying the standard for what a sufficient RFD is, votes get removed because Whiteflame disagrees with the substance of the vote rather than because the vote was objectively sufficient. This used to be more of an issue than it is now... but I wish Bluesteel were the vote moderator. But I digress.)

The even bigger issue is that people just don't know what the hell an RFD should do. This RFD does all and only what an RFD should do, but you'll notice that there is virtually no other judge (other than thett, and bladerunner) on this site who does it correctly. None. No one else consistently gets it right for the right reasons. It's like... you might as well just flip a coin, because there's just no point otherwise. That's why I get so cynical about judging. Debaters at the top of the leaderboard (other than bluesteel) just screw it up all the time.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:53:10 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:41:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/5/2015 4:09:50 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:58:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:

But the analysis is great. Thanks for the RFD, YYW. I really appreciate it. Could you give me some places where I could have improved in the debate?

Yeah, can you give us some feedback of were we could improve in the debate?

At 12/5/2015 4:09:50 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:58:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:40:51 PM, YYW wrote:

But the analysis is great. Thanks for the RFD, YYW. I really appreciate it. Could you give me some places where I could have improved in the debate?

Yeah, can you give us some feedback of were we could improve in the debate?

I'll give general feedback, sure.

Feedback, to both debaters:

The whole way to succeed in any debate is to correctly understand both (1) the resolution, and (2) what your burden of proof is. Each word in the resolution matters; so, in this instance, when we're talking about "legalizing all drugs" then you've got to think about "ok, well what kind of drugs would be legalized?" The only drugs that could be legalized (which are not already legalized) are the ones which are already *illegal*. Now, you can certainly talk about current drugs that are both legal, and presently abused, to show that legalization can lead to abuse... but that only holds is if you can also show that the same drugs would be used at a lesser rate if illegal.

The common problem that I see with most debaters, in this and in virtually every other debate I've judged on this site, is the tendency for debaters to make assumptions about the world that they shouldn't. For example, the assumption that if drugs are illegal, then people will use them less; and the other side of that assumption, which rings to the general tune that "people will not use drugs less when drugs are legal." The problem is that that assumption just doesn't hold (logically, or even commonsensically). You've got to show evidence of (e.g. statistical patterns of drug use in both regimes) how people use specific drugs (not drugs generally) in both worlds to then make the causal argument that a particular drug's status as legal or otherwise has some bearing on the same drug's tendency to be used or abused. So, that's a "missing warrant" issue.

I did support the alternative assumption with a statistical pattern comparison (see Cato Institute study, source 3).

"In this debate, I said X, Y, and Z. My opponent said A, B, and C. I showed X through reasons 1, and 2; Y through reasons 3 and 4; and Z through reasons 5, 6, and 7. My opponent's argument, A, was supported by reasons 8 and 9, but my reasons 1, and 2 negated those reasons. My opponent's argument B was supported by reasons 10, and 11, but my arguments Y and Z overwhelmed that argument's impact (e.g. because the magnitude of my impacts are greater than the magnitude of his impacts). My opponent's argument C was false because it is inconsistent with his prior argument, A, and undermined by the reasons he offered in support of that argument; I also rebutted it with my contention's Y and Z. So, because I'm winning every point, and he's winning no points, I won and he lost. Vote for me."

What are the problems with the following crystallization?

Con drops street drugs and children. Con concedes the framework behind the harm principle, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proving that drugs are an "other regarding" act. Vote Pro because the status quo results in more consumption of drugs, which internal link turns every single argument of Con's. Also vote Pro because the harm principle is the only force that decides government legitimacy, so government action should only be based on other-regarding harms. The utilitarian benefits of drug legalization and harms to the status quo outweigh all of Pro's offense (esp. lives lost; lives lost easily outweighs any of Con's offense, because of utilitarian calculations).

Essentially, the government should only legislate based on "other regarding" harms, drugs don't pose other regarding harms under the plan, and my offense relating to lives lost, crime, and criminal networks causes such huge damage that it outweighs all of Con's offense.

For all the above reasons, vote Pro.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:55:34 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Thanks so much for the feedback, YYW. I really appreciate the RFD and the feedback. I realize what I got wrong in this debate, regarding the missing impact from not following the harm principle (which I should have explained), and a stronger warrant for "drug use increases during prohibition" assumption. I understand that I generally should have explained better.

Thanks a lot!
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 4:09:57 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 3:55:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
Thanks so much for the feedback, YYW. I really appreciate the RFD and the feedback. I realize what I got wrong in this debate, regarding the missing impact from not following the harm principle (which I should have explained), and a stronger warrant for "drug use increases during prohibition" assumption. I understand that I generally should have explained better.

Thanks a lot!

Sure thing.

What are the problems with the following crystallization?

It's not that it was per se bad, so much as it could have been structured more effectively (as could the debate, generally).
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:37:15 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:49:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

Well, as is always the case (and was specifically recently the case with a very high profile debate, though I won't say more) there are a plethora of ostensibly skilled debaters who royally fvck up judging... and I tire of it. It literally irks me to see it, because anyone reasonably possessed of any modest intellectual ability can judge any debate on this site correctly. There is no requirement of specialized knowledge, or expertise. It's just learning a method, and applying that method correctly.

The first thing you've got to do is understand the RFD, and know, in your understanding of the RFD, the difference between arguments which are within the RFD's scope, and which arguments are not. Whenever I see a judge entertain a tangential "counterplan" (and counterplans are so poorly incorporated into so many debates that it's pathetic... I feel like I should have a "YYW on how to talk about counterplans!" session), for instance, which is totally irrelevant to the resolution, or in direct conflict with a debater's burden as required by the resolution, I just cringe. It's like this: such a judge is going to essentially say: "to hell with the resolution, I'm going to make my decision on a point irrelevant to it!"

This is basically because people don't know how think conceptually or logically.

So, while in the past I've written RFD's with the expectation that people could "figure out for themselves" how to judge a debate, I have clearly been wrong to the extent that I assumed that people would. (Even vote moderation, and applying the standard for what a sufficient RFD is, votes get removed because Whiteflame disagrees with the substance of the vote rather than because the vote was objectively sufficient. This used to be more of an issue than it is now... but I wish Bluesteel were the vote moderator. But I digress.)

The even bigger issue is that people just don't know what the hell an RFD should do. This RFD does all and only what an RFD should do, but you'll notice that there is virtually no other judge (other than thett, and bladerunner) on this site who does it correctly. None. No one else consistently gets it right for the right reasons. It's like... you might as well just flip a coin, because there's just no point otherwise. That's why I get so cynical about judging. Debaters at the top of the leaderboard (other than bluesteel) just screw it up all the time.

Thanks. I learned most of my mistakes from the debate.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:45:59 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:37:15 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:49:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

Well, as is always the case (and was specifically recently the case with a very high profile debate, though I won't say more) there are a plethora of ostensibly skilled debaters who royally fvck up judging... and I tire of it. It literally irks me to see it, because anyone reasonably possessed of any modest intellectual ability can judge any debate on this site correctly. There is no requirement of specialized knowledge, or expertise. It's just learning a method, and applying that method correctly.

The first thing you've got to do is understand the RFD, and know, in your understanding of the RFD, the difference between arguments which are within the RFD's scope, and which arguments are not. Whenever I see a judge entertain a tangential "counterplan" (and counterplans are so poorly incorporated into so many debates that it's pathetic... I feel like I should have a "YYW on how to talk about counterplans!" session), for instance, which is totally irrelevant to the resolution, or in direct conflict with a debater's burden as required by the resolution, I just cringe. It's like this: such a judge is going to essentially say: "to hell with the resolution, I'm going to make my decision on a point irrelevant to it!"

This is basically because people don't know how think conceptually or logically.

So, while in the past I've written RFD's with the expectation that people could "figure out for themselves" how to judge a debate, I have clearly been wrong to the extent that I assumed that people would. (Even vote moderation, and applying the standard for what a sufficient RFD is, votes get removed because Whiteflame disagrees with the substance of the vote rather than because the vote was objectively sufficient. This used to be more of an issue than it is now... but I wish Bluesteel were the vote moderator. But I digress.)

The even bigger issue is that people just don't know what the hell an RFD should do. This RFD does all and only what an RFD should do, but you'll notice that there is virtually no other judge (other than thett, and bladerunner) on this site who does it correctly. None. No one else consistently gets it right for the right reasons. It's like... you might as well just flip a coin, because there's just no point otherwise. That's why I get so cynical about judging. Debaters at the top of the leaderboard (other than bluesteel) just screw it up all the time.

Thanks. I learned most of my mistakes from the debate.

The post you're responding to was not about you, if you were wondering. It was about people who judge debates, and in this instance that could not be you, because you were debating. It may be that you already know that, but I just want to be sure to point it out, because my tone was pretty severe.

I do, so often, get frustrated with how dumb other judges are. It irks me. (Imagine a cat, and that I am the cat, and reading a bad RFD is like taking your fingers, and dragging your fingernails up the cat's back---again, I am the cat in this instance---thinking that you're just petting the cat.)

But your debate was, generally, well above average. There is certainly room for improvement, but the fact is that you are clearly capable of improving, which is something you should be encouraged by.

If you desire to learn how to judge, we can talk about that at some point as well.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:45:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:37:15 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:49:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/5/2015 4:14:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nice RFD. Reading it was honestly more educative on how to be a better judge than it was on how to be a better debater.

Well, as is always the case (and was specifically recently the case with a very high profile debate, though I won't say more) there are a plethora of ostensibly skilled debaters who royally fvck up judging... and I tire of it. It literally irks me to see it, because anyone reasonably possessed of any modest intellectual ability can judge any debate on this site correctly. There is no requirement of specialized knowledge, or expertise. It's just learning a method, and applying that method correctly.

The first thing you've got to do is understand the RFD, and know, in your understanding of the RFD, the difference between arguments which are within the RFD's scope, and which arguments are not. Whenever I see a judge entertain a tangential "counterplan" (and counterplans are so poorly incorporated into so many debates that it's pathetic... I feel like I should have a "YYW on how to talk about counterplans!" session), for instance, which is totally irrelevant to the resolution, or in direct conflict with a debater's burden as required by the resolution, I just cringe. It's like this: such a judge is going to essentially say: "to hell with the resolution, I'm going to make my decision on a point irrelevant to it!"

This is basically because people don't know how think conceptually or logically.

So, while in the past I've written RFD's with the expectation that people could "figure out for themselves" how to judge a debate, I have clearly been wrong to the extent that I assumed that people would. (Even vote moderation, and applying the standard for what a sufficient RFD is, votes get removed because Whiteflame disagrees with the substance of the vote rather than because the vote was objectively sufficient. This used to be more of an issue than it is now... but I wish Bluesteel were the vote moderator. But I digress.)

The even bigger issue is that people just don't know what the hell an RFD should do. This RFD does all and only what an RFD should do, but you'll notice that there is virtually no other judge (other than thett, and bladerunner) on this site who does it correctly. None. No one else consistently gets it right for the right reasons. It's like... you might as well just flip a coin, because there's just no point otherwise. That's why I get so cynical about judging. Debaters at the top of the leaderboard (other than bluesteel) just screw it up all the time.

Thanks. I learned most of my mistakes from the debate.

The post you're responding to was not about you, if you were wondering. It was about people who judge debates, and in this instance that could not be you, because you were debating. It may be that you already know that, but I just want to be sure to point it out, because my tone was pretty severe.

I do, so often, get frustrated with how dumb other judges are. It irks me. (Imagine a cat, and that I am the cat, and reading a bad RFD is like taking your fingers, and dragging your fingernails up the cat's back---again, I am the cat in this instance---thinking that you're just petting the cat.)

But your debate was, generally, well above average. There is certainly room for improvement, but the fact is that you are clearly capable of improving, which is something you should be encouraged by.

If you desire to learn how to judge, we can talk about that at some point as well.

I mean, I just read the RFD at the top, not the one in the bottom. Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

I mean, I just read the RFD at the top,

Good.

not the one in the bottom.

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:54:05 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

I do, but to not correct the problem would be negligent on my part. If I wasn't interested in you learning, then I wouldn't have bothered. (Likewise, I wouldn't have written the RFD.)

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.

Keep trying to improve. You're only 14, meaning that you're ahead of the curve with your current skill level. Get further ahead.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:55:15 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:54:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

I do, but to not correct the problem would be negligent on my part. If I wasn't interested in you learning, then I wouldn't have bothered. (Likewise, I wouldn't have written the RFD.)

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.

Keep trying to improve. You're only 14, meaning that you're ahead of the curve with your current skill level. Get further ahead.

Remember. 2 months away from being 15.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:55:54 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:55:15 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:54:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

I do, but to not correct the problem would be negligent on my part. If I wasn't interested in you learning, then I wouldn't have bothered. (Likewise, I wouldn't have written the RFD.)

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.

Keep trying to improve. You're only 14, meaning that you're ahead of the curve with your current skill level. Get further ahead.

Remember. 2 months away from being 15.

Well I never knew, so I couldn't remember that... but right on.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 5:57:00 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:55:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:55:15 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:54:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

I do, but to not correct the problem would be negligent on my part. If I wasn't interested in you learning, then I wouldn't have bothered. (Likewise, I wouldn't have written the RFD.)

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.

Keep trying to improve. You're only 14, meaning that you're ahead of the curve with your current skill level. Get further ahead.

Remember. 2 months away from being 15.

Well I never knew, so I couldn't remember that... but right on.

Oh right, I put the birthday to self, but my birthday is at January 28th.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:02:29 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 5:57:00 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:55:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:55:15 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:54:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

I do, but to not correct the problem would be negligent on my part. If I wasn't interested in you learning, then I wouldn't have bothered. (Likewise, I wouldn't have written the RFD.)

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.

Keep trying to improve. You're only 14, meaning that you're ahead of the curve with your current skill level. Get further ahead.

Remember. 2 months away from being 15.

Well I never knew, so I couldn't remember that... but right on.

Oh right, I put the birthday to self, but my birthday is at January 28th.

Right on
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:42:50 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:02:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:57:00 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:55:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:55:15 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:54:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:50:38 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:49:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2015 5:48:05 AM, fire_wings wrote:

The post at the bottom was not an RFD, it was an explanation of why and how many judges make disastrous errors.

Anyways, just you know what I mean, the explanations.

I do, but to not correct the problem would be negligent on my part. If I wasn't interested in you learning, then I wouldn't have bothered. (Likewise, I wouldn't have written the RFD.)

Sometime I might PM you because I kinda desire to learn how to judge.

Very good.

Thanks.

Keep trying to improve. You're only 14, meaning that you're ahead of the curve with your current skill level. Get further ahead.

Remember. 2 months away from being 15.

Well I never knew, so I couldn't remember that... but right on.

Oh right, I put the birthday to self, but my birthday is at January 28th.

Right on

Anyways, thanks for judging our debate.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

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

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

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka