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.
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.
There are a few angles Con can take on this, but it's going to require more than just arguing semantics, which is what a lot of these debates have become. Despite the "always" in the resolution, it's going to be hard to trap Pro completely. Outargue, sure, but that requires more effort than a semantic trap.
No, I mean before the abortion even starts. If being a doctor implies consent to performing an abortion, and consent can be revoked, then the doctor could revoke that consent when an abortion is requested.
And if people aren't allowed to do only half of something because it's dangerous, then this has bad implications for abortion proponents. After all, an abortion is cutting a pregnancy short halfway through.
Ironically, this site has such few users because it encourages formal arguments. Reddit and YouTube have way more people arguing in the comments and also way more users.
I actually didn't expect to do so many abortion debates when I started out. But it's an issue that most people are willing to do debates on. Easier to get a contender on abortion than on more obscure topics.
Makes sense. I wasn't sure, so I just judged each song as a whole since nothing in the description was telling me to give the instrumental more weight. The parenthetical included my thoughts as I was judging, but it didn't influence my final decision (since I already preferred Once Again as a whole). I think I also mentioned the vocals affecting my decision in other rounds.
It's an odd strategy for either side because you don't have to argue for the conduct point. Voters generally award it automatically. And even if Pro argues that conduct points shouldn't be a part of DART policy, this debate still uses multiple criteria. Nothing in the rules of the debate says voters should not award conduct points. As a voter, I would be inclined to weigh the rules of the site and of the debate over the opinions of either debater, even if said rule is the subject of the debate.
But as Wylted said, I don't think either side here is going for conduct.
Avoiding as many specifics as I can relating to this particular battle...
My inclination would be to go for whichever side has more "impact" in battling their opponent. Some rhyme schemes might make bars come across stronger than other rhyme schemes. Some references might hit harder than others. Some insults might just carry more weight automatically. (This may be somewhat subjective to each voter.) If I had to write the description over again, I'd have made a clearer scoring metric, but as things stand, voters can use whichever metric or system they think is best. I don't know if there's a typical metric by which rap battles are judged—when in doubt, just vote the same way you would score other battles/diss wars that don't give specific criteria for scoring (ERB and Eminem vs. MGK come to mind).
In the example you gave, I think Churchill does significantly better since the former is just random insults, but that's just my opinion.
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.
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.
A lot of troll votes. Some low-effort votes even changed the outcome of debates and weren't removed in time.
Well that was a quick debate
There are a few angles Con can take on this, but it's going to require more than just arguing semantics, which is what a lot of these debates have become. Despite the "always" in the resolution, it's going to be hard to trap Pro completely. Outargue, sure, but that requires more effort than a semantic trap.
> as a lawyer I know pointed out, if someone adds value to a business, they are a fixture of that business and aren’t allowed to ever quit
That does sound like a lawyer, lol
No, I mean before the abortion even starts. If being a doctor implies consent to performing an abortion, and consent can be revoked, then the doctor could revoke that consent when an abortion is requested.
And if people aren't allowed to do only half of something because it's dangerous, then this has bad implications for abortion proponents. After all, an abortion is cutting a pregnancy short halfway through.
Sure, but then the doctor could also revoke consent to performing the operation (or even being a doctor at all).
Most abortion advocates would say that consent can be revoked at any time.
Airborne combat medics are movable between locations.
Forcing unwilling doctors into servitude as chattel for another, is by definition making them a slave.
Slavery is modern-day slavery
He spelled it "Vadimer" instead of "Vladimir" in the title. Now's your chance to accept.
What's the topic?
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Fair enough. These are always the most entertaining debates.
I was about to say this debate seems right up RM's alley
He has two of them: https://www.debateart.com/members/whiteflame/medals
I know you just got done voting on my other debate, but if you get the chance to vote on this one too, that would be great!
Thanks for voting!
Would be good to get a tiebreaker on this!
Tiebreakers needed! I know you are both busy, so much thanks if you do take the time to vote.
Is the reasoning in the newest vote sufficient to award source points?
Do you mean 4 days? Or is there a special policy for revoting?
Tbf, the first group of commenters seems more angry about the quality of the song. And it is an angry song battle.
Plz vote!
Both of you have shown interest in this topic. Please vote on this if you get the chance!
Interested to get your opinion on this! Feel free to vote if you get the chance.
Plz vote!
Ironically, this site has such few users because it encourages formal arguments. Reddit and YouTube have way more people arguing in the comments and also way more users.
I actually didn't expect to do so many abortion debates when I started out. But it's an issue that most people are willing to do debates on. Easier to get a contender on abortion than on more obscure topics.
Makes sense. I wasn't sure, so I just judged each song as a whole since nothing in the description was telling me to give the instrumental more weight. The parenthetical included my thoughts as I was judging, but it didn't influence my final decision (since I already preferred Once Again as a whole). I think I also mentioned the vocals affecting my decision in other rounds.
1 hour left to break the tie! Should be easy to vote on.
Argument time changed to one week
Here you go. Lmk if this works for you.
Thanks for the vote!
Plz vote if you get the chance!
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/263543/on-which-occasions-in-star-trek-the-next-generation-has-data-lied
Lmk if this works for you.
11!! is 39916800 factorial, which is greater than 10^(10^7). Pretty sure that's what Benjamin has up his sleeve.
It's an odd strategy for either side because you don't have to argue for the conduct point. Voters generally award it automatically. And even if Pro argues that conduct points shouldn't be a part of DART policy, this debate still uses multiple criteria. Nothing in the rules of the debate says voters should not award conduct points. As a voter, I would be inclined to weigh the rules of the site and of the debate over the opinions of either debater, even if said rule is the subject of the debate.
But as Wylted said, I don't think either side here is going for conduct.
I'd assumed it was an intentional decision in the spirit of the debate. Hard to see Barney throwing away a round for no reason.
No, I really do appreciate the effort. The comment about Best.Korea was lighthearted, but it wasn't meant as an insult.
I loved reading your RFD! I have often wondered if Best.Korea is a genius ahead of his time.
Thanks!
Thanks for the vote!
Thanks for voting!
Bump
Avoiding as many specifics as I can relating to this particular battle...
My inclination would be to go for whichever side has more "impact" in battling their opponent. Some rhyme schemes might make bars come across stronger than other rhyme schemes. Some references might hit harder than others. Some insults might just carry more weight automatically. (This may be somewhat subjective to each voter.) If I had to write the description over again, I'd have made a clearer scoring metric, but as things stand, voters can use whichever metric or system they think is best. I don't know if there's a typical metric by which rap battles are judged—when in doubt, just vote the same way you would score other battles/diss wars that don't give specific criteria for scoring (ERB and Eminem vs. MGK come to mind).
In the example you gave, I think Churchill does significantly better since the former is just random insults, but that's just my opinion.