Instigator / Pro
40
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Topic
#507

Debaters should not include rules for the debate in the description of a debate.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
63
Better sources
18
42
Better legibility
9
21
Better conduct
4
21

After 21 votes and with 107 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
7,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
147
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

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.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/489

https://www.debateart.com/debates/490

https://www.debateart.com/debates/310

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

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

-->
@Wylted

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.

-->
@Wylted

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).

-->
@Ramshutu

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...

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************

-->
@Alanwang123

I am the site's Chief Moderator.

-->
@Ramshutu

#egoboost

-->
@Alanwang123

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'

-->
@bsh1

Are you Debateart.com's general manager?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

"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.

-->
@Barney

Getting semantics out of the way prior to a debate is fine.

-->
@Wylted

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

-->
@Wylted

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.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

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?

-->
@Wylted

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.

-->
@Wylted

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

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

Yes I can wait until then. Accept please

-->
@Analgesic.Spectre

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.

-->
@Wylted

Are you willing to wait to say/sun to post your opening argument? If so, I’ll accept.

-->
@Wylted

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.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@Wylted

Are the rules I make for my debates okay?