A fallacy of “winning” a debate

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I have reviewed a number of “debates” in which the instigator issues a subject challenge, then proceeds with a fluff R1 that makes no effort to argue any point in support of, or against the Resolution, and then the opponent either forfeits the round, or makes an equally off-topic statement that neither argues for or against the Resolution. 
The debate proceeds through the argument rounds as in R1: nothing for or against the Resolution through the last round.
Voters are not given an option to offer a no-win vote; I.e., both opponents lose. As it is, because one or the other opponent is awarded even 1 point, that participant effectively wins the debate without actually offering a single argument for or against the Resolution. I believe this is a cheap win. I favor voters being given a no-win option to voting because this condition as described above ought to be classed a dual forfeit. Example: debate #5735.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You dont win a debate if voters vote for you, any more than popularity determines the truth. Voters dont determine truth, thus they are irrelevant to who wins a debate. I know that people here are stuck in the matrix where they think getting votes means winning a debate, which means their victory is conditioned by people's opinions and not by truth. The best thing to do is just to ignore voters and say whatever you want in a debate. You dont really want to try to win over voters by only saying things they agree with. It is much better to say what you really think. Besides, there are voting alliances on this site which go in a sense of "you vote for me in my debate, I vote for you in your debate". But I dont really see the point of bothering with such nonsense. I dont like total approval from others anyway. I find disapproval to be much better for gaining attention. Negative attention is superior for personal growth of knowledge, even if it harms mental health significantly.
Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
You ignore that voters are, typically, debaters, themselves, including mods, with as many versions of “the truth” as there are opinions in that regard. No, the object of debate is not to “say whatever you want,” but to argue with scholastic support (source references) for or against the resolution, true, or not. We cannot assume the resolution is true, but that is the instigator’s BoP, for or against. 
The winner of the debate is the participant who acquires the most points directly from voters; your peers on this site. You may personally disagree with voters’ determination of a win, or loss, and that can be appealed, but the mod[s] decision is final.
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You ignore that voters are, typically, debaters, themselves, including mods, with as many versions of “the truth” as there are opinions in that regard.
Thats irrelevant to truth and based on a false premise that if someone is debater or mod, that he tells the truth.

No, the object of debate is not to “say whatever you want,”
It is if you want it to be. Objectives are determined by mind.

but to argue with scholastic support (source references) for or against the resolution, true, or not.
That might be your goal, sure, but it is not really everyone's goal. Not everyone believes whatever sources tell him.

We cannot assume the resolution is true, but that is the instigator’s BoP, for or against. 
This is irrelevant to what I said. The voters still dont determine the truth. Being presented with "proof" is no guarantee of being able to judge that "proof".

The winner of the debate is the participant who acquires the most points directly from voters; your peers on this site.
I have no peers on this site.

You may personally disagree with voters’ determination of a win, or loss, and that can be appealed, but the mod[s] decision is final.
This is not a refutation to anything I said.
Topic's author
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats irrelevant to truth and based on a false premise that if someone is debater or mod, that he tells the truth.
Why DebateArt.com?
Many websites exist for online disagreements. However, they are almost exclusively open forum based, without any method of quality control. They are often reduced to distorted echo chambers perfect for ideologues, and suboptimal for anyone hoping to learn or otherwise grow as a person.
DebateArt.com offers the unique value proposition of a safe environment for competitive one-vs-one text debates, wherein participants own up to the intellectual quality they are capable of presenting. The results of this are then judged by the community to determine a winner, using standards which mitigate partiality (see: Voting Policy). [Help Center/Debates/Wht DebatARt.com]

It is if you want it to be. Objectives are determined by mind.
See directly above.

 Not everyone believes whatever sources tell him.
Develop a debate strategy in support or opposing the Resolution and fond sources that support your strategy. This site has only partial entertain,ment value.

This is irrelevant to what I said.
Yes, it might be since what you said is irrelevant to the point of debate.

This is irrelevant to what I said.
Snob.

This is not a refutation to anything I said.
See directly above.
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, it might be since what you said is irrelevant to the point of debate
Maybe you let others determine point of things for you, but I dont. This responds to everything you wrote. It was mentioned before, but you didnt refute it back then either, so really, I dont even need to put much effort here. And your claim that debating art voting policy makes sure voters tell the truth? So now voting policy determines the truth? Is that your position here?
#7
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 3,656
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Isn't the option to vote on a tie, good enough?
And the option for the debate instigator to choose if the type of vote system?

Though I 'do think the idea of, you both did terrible, and this should count as a loss in your statistics for both of you, to be funny.
Topic's author
#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
And your claim that debating art voting policy makes sure voters tell the truth? 
Did I say that? No:

#3. No, the object of debate is not to “say whatever you want,” but to argue with scholastic support (source references) for or against the resolution, true, or not. 
Whereas you said

#4: Thats irrelevant to truth and based on a false premise that if someone is debater or mod, that he tells the truth.
You, Best.Korea, are the one hung up on truth.  DebateArt is not in existence for debates to argue "truth;" they're to argue the merits of a Resolution, which, itself, may be true, or false. Whoever offers the better argument in that regard is the winner by voters, and not by whether the Resolution is the truth, or not. So, to clarify, I do not insist that truth is a relevant factor in the judgment of opponents winning or losing a debate by voters, but whether the relative BoP's by the opponents are met, or not.
If my BoP in a debate is to demonstrate that God is a screaming blue spaghetti monster [I do not believe that] and I am able to convince voters by my arguments that he is [true or not], then I have met my BoP, and I win the debate.
But that has naught to do with the purpose of my #1 post. Try to stay on point.
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
DebateArt is not in existence for debates to argue "truth;"
Thats great, so voters are just irrelevant and should be ignored. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Topic's author
#10
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Isn't the option to vote on a tie, good enough?
No, because it awards point[s] to a lost effort where conditions of the debate are so poor, neither participant makes an effort to argue their BoP,  but merely to pad stats in a losing effort that is not currently allowed to voters to render. Why should anyone score any points when their effort does not achieve the objective of Resolution BoP?
Topic's author
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Don't be absurd. I'm saying voters. currently, are unable to render a decision of failure of a debate participant to meet a minimum effort to argue their Resolution BoP. No one should earn points for that failure, even by rendering a tie vote, which does apply debate points, but in a losing effort. I oppose the award of any pants for complete failure to meet BoP, such as in both participants forfeiture.
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
No one should earn points for that failure
Well, the points mean nothing, since they dont represent the truth, thus should be just ignored as if they dont even exist. I did always have opinion that debates shouldnt even have voters, but since they do, then they can be ignored.
#13
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,365
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Debate never solves a problem. Debate only prolongs any problem from being solved. Debate almost never leads to common ground but only widens the gap to any resolution to anything. The goal of debate is to marginalize all Ideas but your own.
#14
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
Debate never solves a problem. Debate only prolongs any problem from being solved.
Thats true. You can debate about a broken car all you want, still a broken car.

Debate almost never leads to common ground but only widens the gap to any resolution to anything.
Usually, the goal of a debate is to make other person look stupid or evil.
#15
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,666
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I once proposed the site allow users to press a number counter to attain something like Awesome Points, to mitigate the focus on ELO. I wholly agree this is stupid, and yet I am not convinced I'm wrong.
Topic's author
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Why do you keep insisting on being hung-up by  truth? it its not a necessary function of debate. I tire of this exchange.
Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@sadolite
...marginalize all Ideas but your own.
Since you do not engage in debate on this site, you marginalize  yourself from it. No, that is not what debate does.
Topic's author
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
debate is to make other person look stupid or evil.
Nope; you ignore the nfree exchange of ideas by a formalized process.
Topic's author
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
My #1 post outlined a very real condition by example of debate #5735, in which Pro offered a challenge with a Resolution, which was accepted by Con, but R1 did not have an argument for the Resolution, by Pro, and Con forfeited. The rest of the debate was a total forfeit by Con, but Pro never offered a single argument for the Resolution, effectively winning the debate according to votes [not yet concluded, but that will be the result], simply by Con's forfeit. But the win should not be recognized, because Pro did not enter a single argument. Every reply comment on this string is off-topic. This is an argument to halt all such debate results, and there have been several I've observed like this: cheap wins. 
#20
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,365
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
Sure it does. That is the point of a debate. To attempt to dismiss all of your opponents arguments and sources as flawed, incorrect or just plain false.  I debated quite a bit in the old wild west days at Debate.org. I found that debates pretty much all went the same, dismiss all the sources and attack any idea that wasn't established main stream thinking, nothings changed.
#21
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope; you ignore the nfree exchange of ideas by a formalized process.
I dont ignore it. In fact, it is crucial in making other person sound stupid or evil.
Topic's author
#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
making other person sound stupid or evil.
What a narrow approach. My debate technique is not personal attack, which is exact;y what you suggest ['stupid" or "evil."]  What have those conditions to do with an opponent's arguments and rebuttals? Nothing. Personal attack is the last losing argument because that attacker has no valid argument left to them. I attack an opponent's argument, to demonstrate its flaws while offering my position with referenced scholastic support of my position, and may the best argument win the day.
#23
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
My debate technique is not personal attack, which is exact;y what you suggest ['stupid" or "evil."]
Well, it doesnt have to be specifically stupid or evil. You can also make opponent look insane, delusional, weak, coward, incapable...ect.

What have those conditions to do with an opponent's arguments and rebuttals?
Good point. You can use opponent's arguments to make him look stupid because his arguments are stupid and he made them, so he cant be much smarter than his stupid arguments. But always make sure to call argument stupid and not the person who makes it. That way, person still looks stupid but you dont get banned. Its a win win.
Topic's author
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
You can also make opponent look insane, delusional, weak, coward, incapable...ect.
Is it lost on you that such still mounts to personal attack, and personal attack is a lost argument?
#25
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,666
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry, my mind jumped to the past problem of people farming that for cheap wins and thus cheap ELO.

To your proposal, I’d say there’s the drawback that such debates also aren’t true draws either. Winning via disqualification isn’t much of a victory, but it’s still a superior performance to not showing up.

On one site conflicting ideologies on these lead to ugly exchanges of vote bombs. Counter vote bombs aren’t allowed here, but I personally was in favor 1 for 1 singular counter votes; which meant if more judges thought it should be a tie than it could be tied without vote deletion nor escalating exchanges of increased point allotments.

Ultimately, I hope the next one of these sites can separate wins from wins if you know what I mean.
#26
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Is it lost on you that such still mounts to personal attack, and personal attack is a lost argument?
It is not possible to lose an argument as long as you keep believing in what you are saying.
Topic's author
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
It is not possible to lose an argument
It is when that argument is personal attack rather than to the point of the Resolution, for or against. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? 
#28
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
It is when that argument is personal attack rather than to the point of the Resolution, for or against. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? 
If I decide that the point of resolution is personal attack and that personal attack supports my side of resolution, then I would lose a debate if I didnt do personal attack. So really, this conversation just goes in circles where you are stuck with being unable to figure out who decides the purpose and who decides the truth. Let me give you a hint: truth doesnt exist.
Topic's author
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,794
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Best.Korea
truth doesnt exist.
I've been around the sun more times than you, I'll wager - 75 times, and I'll do more than hint. I'll lay it bare for you: Truth exists in more places than you or I have been., or ever will be. Truth fills the universe, but that fact is off-topic to this string. I will remind what it is:

I have reviewed a number of “debates” in which the instigator issues a subject challenge, then proceeds with a fluff R1 that makes no effort to argue any point in support of, or against the Resolution, and then the opponent either forfeits the round, or makes an equally off-topic statement that neither argues for or against the Resolution. 
The debate proceeds through the argument rounds as in R1: nothing for or against the Resolution through the last round. 
This is from post #1. This string is about utter avoidance of support or denial of a Resolution whether true, our not, so your argument does not follow.
#30
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 412
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I've been around the sun more times than you, I'll wager - 75 times, and I'll do more than hint. I'll lay it bare for you: Truth exists in more places than you or I have been., or ever will be. Truth fills the universe, but that fact is off-topic to this string. I will remind what it is:
Okay, so you believe in nonsense which you cant prove and you are old, which means your mental abilities have increased possibility of declining.

This is from post #1. This string is about utter avoidance of support or denial of a Resolution whether true, our not, so your argument does not follow.
You did concede that voters dont determine the truth, so opinion of voters can be ignored.