DebateArt Should Award Points For Strategy
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Burden of Proof is Shared
I will argue there should be another criteria for winning points, named "Strategy" that is either 1 or 2 points (haven't decided yet). It can replace the Spelling and Grammar section if it is superior or if S&G is redundant
Con will argue against the existence of such a criteria when voting for who wins
What is Strategy? Strategy is the tactics to which an opponent uses to win the debate. The Debaters must clearly identify the most important issues and allocate characters according to each, according to the significance. For example, let's say I'm arguing about Abortion and I am Pro Choice. The most important issue here is clearly about whether the fetus can be considered as important as a human life or not. If I spend my time arguing forever about non-consent (a very small aspect of the issue), I will lose in Strategy even if my argument was more convincing than my opponent's.
More info about "Strategy": https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS-Scoring-Guide-1.pdf
For max points, the winner should fulfill: "All points are identified clearly by the speaker and flow from one section to the other is effortless and easy to
follow. Arguments address exclusively main issues in the round. Timing of arguments and rebuttal is carefully
chosen to effect most damage. Arguments were put into broader context of the motion and debate itself."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
We've never considered weights of emojis compared to forfeiting, and they can vary so very much... I don't foresee it becoming a common enough occurrence to impact any debate outcomes.
**************************************************
This guy bruh. " "Strategy" is too similar to "Arguments." "
Just write that strategy can be awarded through argument.
I can't find any dictionary where "Arguments" has "strategy" as a similarity.
By technicality I actually agree with you. The existing points here technically all account for strategy. Arguments would be nothing if not for strategy supporting it with rhetorical beams.
Oh wait, I can't accept rated debates currently. You'd have to make this debate standard for me to accept anyway. If you really want this debate to be rated, that's fine.
Okay, I've thought about this a bit and I'm interested in this debate. Increase the character limit to at least 5,000 and I'll accept.
I was just pointing out that its not a fallacy. As for this topic, we already have enough problems with sources and conduct winning debates which by mere arguments wouldnt be won.
So I fail to see how adding more points to vote on wont just enable certain voters to make it so that their vote counts as much as 3 other votes.
If "strategy" is treated same as "arguments", then maybe, sure. Other than that, I dont see the purpose.
But maybe Pro will convince me into his views.
Gish should win argument points if his strategy succeeds, but if his opponent is just more knowledgeable to the point that gish galloping fails, I don't think Gish should be rewarded for his "strategy" that failed to convince the audience.
"Fallacies like appealing to authority or appealing to emotion or gish galloping might be good strategies but shouldn't be rewarded"
Gish Gallop isnt exactly a fallacy. I dont know why people everywhere officially put it as a fallacy, when its one of the most effective debating tactics in history which everyone should try, if for nothing, for fun at least.
Its not just Trump who used it to destroy opponents. The very person its named after, Gish, used it to completely make fun of much more educated opponents. Actual scientists were made to look like complete idiots.
On this site tho, it just means that instead of few arguments supported by many points, you make many arguments supported by few points.
Same with counter arguments. Many counter arguments supported by few points.
How is it different than arguments?
I respect your opinions but there is no way I would agree to that. This will just take the perk that I adore the most about here away and lest this become one of the normal ones.
If I want to argue the obvious, I would obviously go somewhere else for that.
Idk if I'll have the time to accept, but it seems like the most effective strategy is just whatever one is more convincing. If someone uses what I might deem a "bad strategy" but succeeds in countering their opponent's points, then their strategy probably wasn't bad at all.
Fallacies like appealing to authority or appealing to emotion or gish galloping might be good strategies but shouldn't be rewarded.
I'll admit I'm a bit mixed on this one. I can see the point of it, but it would further complicate the 7-point system (you might want to clarify if you're increasing the number of points or taking it away from some other category), so I could see room for issues. Let me think about this a bit.
I've been a long supporter of more optional categories.
thoughts?