Debaters should not include rules for the debate in the description of a debate.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 21 votes and with 107 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Not to be accepted by RM, and the debate is mostly about the stupid ass rules that most people are starting to adopt for debates. You'll see the rules in debates created by people like bsh1, analgesic or virtuoso. examples.
I'm sure bsh1 has other dick riders here that also copy his rule set. Anyway I'd prefer if one of the morons using that rule set agree to debate, but the debate is opponent to all people on the site with the exception to the guy who debate spams the site ruining literally hundreds of debates that had the potential to be good but weren't. Just to be clear, the request for RM not to debate is not a rule, merely a request, and I make it for the same reason nearly every competent debater that refuses to debate him makes it for.
For the purpose of this debate, I will be arguing based on values principles fairness, accessibility to all, and the enjoyment of participants of the site - without which this site would cease to exist.
Based on this, the reasons why debaters should be allowed to include rules, fall into two broad categories:
There are clear benefits to both debaters to include “rules”
1.a) As a defense against time wasting.
When one side places substantial effort into a good faith argument, whilst the other forfeits, produces bad faith arguments or engages in obviously poor conduct - this is detrimental to the instigator who may want a genuine discussion on an issue rather than on Kritiks, theory or trolling.
While kritiks and theory are valid - not everyone likes them, and on an informal debate site limiting such obtuse tangents that aren’t directly relevant helps to keep debates focus on the issues.
The ability to specify rules in this way helps to both inform voters exactly what should be considered anti-social, or constitutes a bad faith argument, and allows the instigator having their time wasted to spend as little time and energy as possible.
1.b) Consent to expectations, assumptions, definitions and semantics.
It takes substantial word count to argue definitions, assumptions, or preferences in the debate topic and limited room in the debate proposition. As a result, rules become a good way of establishing additional definitions and inherent assumptions (IE: that the resolution is accepted by fiat - with all implicit assumptions accepted) and to establish the general expectations of the instigator.
This ability to specify rules gives the debate challenger the ability to consent to these expectations of the instigator allows for a common understanding of the assumptions, semantics and definitions to be agreed up front without long winded explanation in the debate that sucks up the word count that could be used for genuine discussion.
This ability to fully appreciate what is being consented to both in expectation of style, conduct AND terminology is clearly critical to the challenger and the debater as it allows for transparent topic and terms of debate to be agreed by both sides while both sides can still back out.
1.c) Balanced control.
As a corollary to both 1a and 1b there is also this:
While the instigator controls the debate topic in open challenges they are otherwise powerless to control who accepts their debate: and from this whether the instigator will abuse or troll, waste their time, or present technical theory arguments and completely bypass the resolution the instigator wants to debate.
Contenders can pick and chose which debate they choose to accept and know who they are arguing against, whereas instigators on open challenges cannot easily pick the contender. This presents an inherent advantage to contenders, especially those more knowledgeable on theory and related arguments. Generalized limitations and conduct rules help to redress this imbalance, by allowing debaters to bypass some of the crazier and more esoteric off topic arguments or semantics and help reduce the impact of abuse accordingly.
Obviously, there is a limit before these rules become unfair, which is not crossed by any example provided by pro, but it does mitigate the ability of semantic lawyers trying to pick and chose debates to win on technicalities which - in the context of debate is not particular enjoyable.
This issue is much more specific to the internet where individuals accepting are not accountable in the same way that your opponent in a debate team may be; where you have to use your name, are often accountable to your school and team.
1.d) This is an open debate platform.
Not everyone wants to debate the same way, if someone wants a rap battle, or post videos, or meme fight - and wants to have fun the way they want, tailored rules allow them to do this.
Why not allow individuals to enjoy the platform the way they want by specifying the rules they are happiest debating.
2.) Lack of any actual harm.
My opponents position is that rules shouldn’t be included in a debate. As I will show - there little actual harm to anyone in having such rules in place:
2.a) You are not forced to accept rules, so why care?
If you see rules you don’t like - you are free not to accept that debate. The necessity of your consent prevents any harm of any rules from being realized.
Debaters can propose any rules in a debate they want at all - and should be free to do so on the grounds that such rules have no actual impact on anyone at all other than those willing to abide by by and accept them.
Why are placing these sorts of rules any more or less problematic than selecting 5 rounds with a 7000 word count and 6 month voting period?
2.b) You are REALLY not forced to accept rules.
Even with the above, rules are mostly a “gentleman’s agreement” for the purposes of fair play. It has been understood that the rules in debates are only enforced if consented to explicitly by both sides or not at all . As a result - you are still free to challenge definitions, rules violations, etc the same way as pro suggests in the plan outlined in his debate description.
In this respect there is absolutely no difference between pros suggested plan and the status quo other than the lack of any of benefits currently realized with the ability to specify rules.
There are examples of poor debaters, using definitions to try and bait and switch the resolution to score easy wins against weak opponents.
I would argue that this would happen with or without rules - anyone not experienced enough to realize when rules are being used to set up a cheap semantic win - is less likely to be able to deal with these arguments if presented after a debate with no rules is presented. It is thus likely to be a problem regardless of whether this information is presented in the rules or not.
The community itself helps eliminate this behaviour - warning prospective members  meaning that lack of rules in this instance would be neutral at best.
Rules clearly have defined and easily demonstrable benefit in a number of cases, these cases far outweigh the potential harms pro can provide as a challenger clearly has the ability to knowingly consent to any rules.
As a result, it is clear that there real issue issue with debaters creating their own rules if they so chose.
 https://www.debateart.com/debates/501 (info)
I am sorry. I have bipolar disorder and entered a depressed phase where I laid in bed almost catatonic. I was also recovering from a bunch of bad decisions I made while manic, like quitting my job and playing poker like 20 hours a day and having pockets full of cash, which allowed me to live in fancy hotels and fuck multiple veautiful women, and do some really fun drugs. That shit was fun until I had to face my wife and kid while needing pampered and having to fight my way back to a respectable income level, which is where I am at. I would love a rematch, but I definitely want the debate deleted if you can find it in your heart. I was 100% responsible for my situation but I would still appreciate some pity here.
"I'm sure bsh1 has other dick riders here that also copy his rule set"
That is FUCKING MORONIC
I’m happy to delete debates, and have done so multiple times where one side has forfeited and wants a restart.
I’m more inclined when people apologize directly in the comments, right after the event, with an explanation of whatever compelling reason led to the forfeit, and give me an indication they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think any of those apply here, so I’m not really inclined to suggest a deletion when the debate is in the last day of a 6 month voting period.
For the audience, would you mind explaining why you believe it was a free win? It's been six months, so you're probably the only person who remembers why you forfeited.
I will say that it would seem reasonable to request a rematch and this former iteration be purged from the site (I've made this suggestion for other debates).
If you have an ounce of pride, you will delete this debate and not accept the free win,
"Debaters should not include rules for the debate in the description of a debate."
*Adds rules in short description and long description of the debate*
I tjink I put some links up to some guides to the objectively correct way to vote in my border wall debate if you are interested in looking at them. I had forgotten about this debate until now but remember trying to teach you the stuff written in those guides.
lol the guy who says there should be no rules has rules...
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a concession. Per the site's voting policy, conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side.
I am the site's Chief Moderator.
He is the second-highest ranking user who is the acting GM of this 'hotel' in theory yes. The 'owner' is the user 'debateart.com'
Are you Debateart.com's general manager?
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
I'd love to be a stickler, so I will. Technically, the BoP would solely fall on the pro choice advocate for a very specific reason. We're talking about civil rights. In the case of civil rights, the proper way to handle BoP is to assume that every person gets every right and then provide BoPs to say why they shouldn't. Following this methodology, one must concluded that The Pro Life position is default position and can be handled entirely with skepticism. Obviously you can't opt for shared BoP, so the question will ultimately come down to how you want to debate it, but it is good practice for use to recognize when BoP is not shared for logical reasons.
I agree that putting rules in debates is wrong. It's goal tending. It's just a way for the poster to create a zero sum game. It's the kid at the play ground saying "let's playing cowboys and Indians, but I'm the Indian and I have an invincible shield so you can't hurt me"
Some rules can be okay for the sake of fun (like assuming a premise axiomatically on both sides to make the argument more exciting) But overall, the rule always somehow restricts what kind of arguments their opponent can make and that's not cool. If someone makes a bad argument, you have every right to embarrass that idea by tearing it down in front of them, but telling them they can't make that bad argument is a step too far, because what if that "bad" argument is the only argument that can rebut you? There are already rules set in place in a debate for conduct, and BoP. Adding to that is changing the way a debate works. It's like when people put money on free parking in Monopoly. It sounds fun until everyone is rolling in dough and the game never ends.
"Just to be clear, the request for RM not to debate is not a rule, merely a request, and I make it for the same reason nearly every competent debater that refuses to debate him makes it for."
The reason is that I am the only debater capable of making the competent feel incompetent and to suddenly make them slip up in ways no other can.
Fear is the reason, simple as that.
Getting semantics out of the way prior to a debate is fine.
Yeah you’re fine. I’m thoroughly disinterested in the entirety of your thoughts on judging.
If you feel that debate winners and losers should be decided not by the actual merit or validity of their argument or how well they argued it compared to the other but by the judges opinion on how good or bad the debater was at technicalities and knowledge of the ASDU rulebook - or whoever is able to respond last - you’re very much entitled to that opinion if you wish; but I’m not going to be ruling in that way, as I (and a large number of others) think it fundamentally undermines the whole purpose of what debate actually means. Anally retentive analysis of debate technicalities sometimes stands completely opposed to the nuances of an individual debate, including those where one side offers the most well reasoned and well warranted arguments; and in such cases, arguments should win.
Other than some core tenets of logic, argumentation, and issues bias that I definitely and most assuredly follow, there is no “objectively correct” way of judging, which is why judging methodology in debates, has repeatedly been and continues to be the source of debate and discussion in its own right to this day within the debate community.
You may have a judging style that you favour of prefer. But the only real object fact about judging is that no matter which way a judge votes, and no matter how well reasoned or valid that vote is, a not insignificant subset of debaters are going to find it pant-soilingly unfair that the judge didn’t vote for them. If you want to be surrounded by people who adhere to a strict and anally retentive views on applying the letter of specific vagaries and technicalities rather than an inherent application of fairness, I’d suggest you get a job with the DMV or IRS.
Other than that, I have little more to say on this matter, and will either refer you back to the text above, or failing that, my avatar.
I definitely would have accepted this challenge, largely due to my sense of organization...
Which is not to say I agree with the specific rules cited. Things like not forfeiting and not cheating go without saying.
However, bloody well agreeing to shared definitions before the debate starts, helps to have a clean debate instead of one about semantics.
The latter should be weighed against the bad one in an impact analysis and the bigger weight get favorite treatment. So if the impact of the bad argument is total destruction of earth and the impact of the good argument is saving whales from extinction than no the latter should lose if those are the o ly two arguments weighed. Also I agree I have seen terrible judging paradigms, but there is only one objectively correct and perfect way to judge and that is the way that should be done. I encourage you to follow what good judges do and not the incorrect paradigms you have seen. I'll judge a debate tonight and tag you and break down my thought process so ypu can learn the objectively correct way to judge
Well yeah, an uncontested argument should be taken as true - but that doesn’t mean it’s not an unwarranted or bad argument. They’re not the same thing. You see, in debates people often make more than one argument or point, and if there is a bad uncontested argument against an excellent, but contested argument - the latter should get the points.
Seriously, look up some judge paradigms. You’ll be kinda disappointed.
No you would only have to back up the argument if your opponent failed to call it out as a bare assertion. Otherwise the argument is uncontested and should be taken as fact. This is why arguments in the final round are nkt allowed.
No, you would not judge which argument is better, lol. If both arguments were accepted you would do an impact analysis. WTF is wrong with you?
So, a judge who is there to cast a vote about which argument is better than another is not allows to actually judge whether either argument is good or bad. Lol.
You should probably google some judge paradigms. You’re in for a shock.
For the argument, "Aliens are real and did 9/11" the BoP would be on the person making the claim.
It is not up to you to use your own subjective judgement to label an argument good or bad. If I say aliens are real and behind 9/11 it shpuld be accepted as good until the argument is addressed. You are not to weigh the goodness of an argument.
"Then argue that in the confines of the debate" Can you be more specific?
"I remember YYW had a good guide on BOP one tine that I completely agree with." Who is YYW?
As someone who is pro life, the BoP is on the pro lifer to confirm why abortion should be illegal. They wish to prohibit something, so they must provide proof as to why abortion should be illegal. This is easy, to the pro lifer, abortion kills an unborn child. From this, the BoP is shared as to whether a fetus is a human being.
If I think the BoP should be shared, then I put that in the rules. Otherwise, I determine who gets the BoP.
Wait, what? Since when do I need to treat a bad argument as if it’s better than it actually is to be Tabula Rasa?
Please stop judging sources that way also. It is a point that should be awarded in less than 1% of debates and o ly when an opponent argues good reasons why they shpuld win the point
Your judging standards are laughably incorrect. For example this tid bit "This means if an argument is bad but unaddressed, I will still treat it as bad. " . stop being a piece of shit and please adopt a tabula Rasa judging style.
Then argue that in the confines of the debate. I remember YYW had a good guide on BOP one tine that I conpletely agree with. As far as normative positions such as whether abortion is unethical or should be illegal or not, BOP should be split evenly. On assertions such as God is Real or God is non existent, BOP is on who makes the positive Ssertion, but regardless of whether my views are correct or not, you should not handcuff the judges in that way. Also, if you have strong opi ions on who holds the bOP it should be fleshed out with in the debate. As far as always wanting the last word is concerned, I can emphatize with it, but the instigator should not get last word.
Yes I can wait until then. Accept please
Bsh1 being a good debater has nothing to do with the fact he has weaknesses and cowardice. The rules are a form of cowardice that means he never has to address his weaknesses.
"The BOP is something that is up to the judges unless debaters bring it up and debate it." The BoP is on those that wish for something to be prohibited or mandatory since they wish to enforce their view on others.
"The forfeit rule is stupid because best arguments should win even if I only debate the first round and you debate all 5." Fine, I don't plan on including debates with the forfeit rule in the future if I remember this conversation. However, it is poor conduct and poor arguing, so should voters vote like that when arguing? I think they should.
"Plus there is no reason you should not go first." I do this one because I want the last word in debates and this is how I get it.
Are you willing to wait to say/sun to post your opening argument? If so, I’ll accept.
Right, because bsh is a dreadful debater that wasn't near the top on DDO at all. His rules must be so stupid. I'm such a moron for using rules that he developed over his successful debating career.
The rules I read in the following debate are stupid. https://www.debateart.com/debates/478
The BOP is something that is up to the judges unless debaters bring it up and debate it. The forfeit rule is stupid because best arguments should win even if I only debate the first round and you debate all 5. Plus there is no reason you should not go first. Thinking skipping the first argument is an advantage is dumb, it is also a rule with the potential to be unfair.
Are the rules I make for my debates okay?