Instigator / Pro

Текстовый формат ведения спора лучше подходит для выяснения истинны в ходе такового, в сравнении с голосовым.


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Я считаю, что текстовый спор лучше подходит для выявления истины (истинности (или наоборот) выдвинутых тезисов и аргументов оппонентов).

Round 1
You cant scream on opponent using text.
Round 2
You cant interrupt text.
Round 3
Извиняюсь за отсутствие ответа на ваши прошлые аргументы.
>«Вы не можете кричать на человека, используя текст», неужели, если я буду кричать на своего оппонента даже неся неправду, то я сразу начинаю быть правым?
Приведу свои аргументы в сторону того, что в текстовом формате, по сравнению с голосовым, проведения спора (далее: ТФ(TF)) намного легче найти более истинную позицию в споре, т.к. я считаю, что то, что описали вы не может выступать даже подобием конкретного предмета для обсуждения.
Во первых, в текстовом формате легче анализировать данные оппонентом аргументы.
Во вторых, в следствии того, что спор в ТФ проходит, обычно, дольше, чем голосовой спор, у оппонентов больше времени на анализ аргументов оппонента и формулировку контраргументов.
В третьих, при споре в ТФ можно прямо во время спора обращаться к сторонним источникам, дабы подтвердить своё мнение.
В четвертых, при предоставлении или обращении к дополнительным источникам от оппонента, ты будешь проверять их во время спора, а не после, как в случае с голосовым спором.
Is it really possible that if I yell at my opponent even while telling a lie, then I immediately begin to be right?
No, but you can sound right even if you lie due to gish gallop.

I will give my arguments to the fact that in a text format, compared to a voice format, conducting a dispute (hereinafter: TF (TF)) it is much easier to find a more true position in the dispute, because I believe that what you described cannot be even a semblance of a specific subject for discussion.
My opponent assumes that finding truth is more important. Thats just assumption. Maybe I prefer sounding right.

Firstly, in text format it is easier to analyze the arguments given by the opponent.
Which gives advantage to your opponent as well, where in verbal debate, you can confuse your opponent with endless gish gallop and confusing logic which takes more time to think of a refute than to say.

Therefore, oral is preferable when truth is not on your side.

Secondly, due to the fact that a dispute in a TF usually takes longer than a voice dispute, opponents have more time to analyze their opponent’s arguments and formulate counterarguments.
Its actually a common misunderstanding, but my opponent assumes that the goal is to analyze your opponent's arguments, where actual goal is to sound right, which oral allows to more people.

Thirdly, in case of a dispute in the TF, you can directly turn to third-party sources during the dispute in order to confirm your opinion.
So can your opponent, and if truth is on his side, even more. Therefore, there are cases where oral is better and more desirable, such as when truth isnt on your side. 

Fourth, when providing or accessing additional sources from your opponent, you will check them during the dispute, and not after, as is the case with a voice dispute
My opponent assumes that you need to check sources, but as explained, gish gallop makes it impossible to be proven wrong in oral dispute, allowing everyone to sound right.

Since sounding right is more desirable than truth, it follows that oral is better for that in many cases.

My opponent assumed that truth is more important than sounding right, but thats not true. Most people prefer to sound right even when they know they lie.

Further, since many people lie, it would be absurd to assume that truth is more important to them.

Further, oral does not prevent finding truth, where formal text does not guarantee truth either, since it too is vunerable to gish gallop and character limit.

But many people are not capable of sounding right in text debate, where great majority is capable of sounding right in oral.

So oral for them is obviously better, more desirable.
Round 4
You can record verbal talk and still reach closer to truth if truth is what you are after.
Round 5
1) «Вы можете записывать устные разговоры и при этом приближаться к истине» – изначальная тема дискуссии была нацелена на то, что бы разъяснить, какой формат проведения таковой является доминантным в контексте выяснения истины. От того, что я запишу спор в котором, например, участвовал я – истина не выясниться в ходе самого спора, потому что я не могу повернуть время вспять и дать надуманные после спора аргументы.
Вы даёте аргументы относительно темы, которую надумали себе сами, они никак не коррелируют с изначальной темой дискуссии. Более того, я даже попросил дать аргументы в сторону того, что «голосовой формат проведения дискуссии является более доминантным в контексте выяснения истины», когда вы говорите про то, как ваши слова могут воспринять другие. Ораторские споры больше подходят на дебаты и не являются доминантными в выяснении истины. Иначе бы – научные споры велись бы в устном, а не письменном как сейчас формате.
the truth will not become clear during the dispute itself, because I cannot turn back time and give far-fetched arguments after the dispute
My opponent assumes that presenting arguments or analyzing them is same as reaching the truth.

He ultimately didnt prove that doing so will ever get one closer to truth.

My opponent assumes that you can turn back time after a text dispute, but not after a verbal dispute.

Recording verbal debate allows you to turn back time and give arguments after the dispute.

If not, then you cannot present arguments even after text debate, and you have character limit there too. My opponent assumes that these limitations wouldnt prevent truth, but they would.

But in verbal, you can reach the truth by recording it and then slowly studying it. Verbal also takes less time, so we can say that verbal takes us to the truth faster.

You are giving arguments regarding a topic that you have come up with for yourself; they in no way correlate with the original topic of discussion. Moreover, I even asked for arguments in the direction that “the voice format of the discussion is more dominant in the context of clarifying the truth” when you talk about how your words may be perceived by others.
My opponent assumes that people would be more likely to read long texts than simply listen to verbal discussion.

However, most people wouldnt even read those long texts, where most people would listen to short verbal discussion.

Oratorical arguments are more suitable for debate and are not dominant in clarifying the truth. Otherwise, scientific disputes would be conducted orally, and not in writing, as they are now.
Scientific disputes are often conducted verbally.

Further, my opponent forgets that any kind of text dispute either comes with character limit either it doesnt.

If it does come with character limit, then truth cannot be said completely.

If it doesnt come with character limit, then anyone who writes too much would either overwhelm others making them unable to respond to all either others wouldnt read it.

Since my opponent talked about disputes with time limit, its obvious that it takes more time to type and read whats typed than to talk.

So with equal time, verbal dispute wins over text dispute.

My opponent assumed that in verbal dispute you wouldnt have time to analyze, where in text dispute you would.

But this is only because my opponent assumed unequal time in text and verbal dispute, giving unfair treatment.

When given same amount of time, since talking and listening is faster than typing and reading, it follows that either more points can be made in verbal, either there is more time to analyze arguments in verbal, when both verbal and text disputes last same amount of time.

Further, my opponent didnt say who reaches the truth better. Masses arent really readers. They are more of a listeners, so verbal debate is better for them.

Just how much forfeits can one get away with?