Instigator / Pro
7
1488
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1250

Modern Debate Is Abused

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

logicae
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

So much for "Short Description" XD. I will continue here. This debate, about debate, is not meant to be a win or end up in a smoking pot of #$E# type of debate. It should be more of a conversation, as debate used to be.

We talk about rules on these sites. (they are important for obvious reasons :) I only propose three:
.
1. BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)

2. Sources are NOT everything. (Something that is also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions, and are unable to be defended by mere facts)

3. Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks,... etc)

Now I made three rounds for this debate. I am hoping to debate based on common understanding and evidence based on popular beliefs/debates (the presidential debates for example). I would also like that we keep this debate within the context of the U.S, but if you have been dying to defend debate in North Korea...well go ahead.

Please do not pick up this debate if you are simply trying to debate as many of these as possible. The end goal is truth, not biting someone's tooth. (not "winning")

To Truth!

-logicae

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

log=PRO Rm=CON To profess, I agree with con, although it's not a topic I'm very interested. I don't believe I was biased in my voting.

Log states how the purpose of debate has been changed from the pursuit of truth, to winning to achieve support or power. RM fails to truly address this, he states what debate is in his eyes "to outwit, outcharm and outmaneuver the opponent via logic, emotional appeal and anything to get the votes that doesn't break the rules." in RM's words. This doesn't disprove how MODERN DEBATE has been abused.

RM states"the focus here is on what is being abused not that abuse is happening. It is not debating itself that's being abused rather my opponent has a romantic view of debating and then is shocked that it's so harsh and corrupt in reality." This does fail to address the debate, Log states how modern debate leads away from the pursuit of truth, you can lead away from the pursuit of truth by attacking your opponent, if modern debate encourages attacking your opponent then you can still claim modern debate is abused. Log states how the act of dodging truth in the pursuit of victory is abusive.

Log does make a mistake however by denying RMs definition of debating without offering an alternative definition, he state how it's too limited, so offer a more broad definition.

Log states that modern debate is seen in political debates, and abused there.

Overall RM doesn't prove that modern debate isn't abused well enough, his R3 response is a misrepresentation of Log's point, it's clear when log states truth is abused he means were putting truth aside for victory, in other words RM's largest point, that it's not the debate being abused but the opponent doesn't hold up.