Debate Topics - Title/Resolution

As long as the title gives one a good implication of what is being debated, title doesn't matter too much in my view.

So long as one covers oneself in the description of the debate, to prevent misinterpretations of the debate topic or Burden of Proof.

I don't think vague or general debates are 'bad,

But if one 'wanted a specific debate, then sometimes it is good to be specific about that.

When? Where? Goal? X in what way?

Lack of clarity is the only issue I ever seen with debate topics. I've always been mindful of whether I make the topic a question or a statement. If it's a question, it needs to be a yes/no question, and question-type debates assume a shared burden of proof. If it's a statement, it needs to be stated as succinctly and clearly as possible. In the case of topics as statements, I think pro generally has the burden of proof unless they stipulate otherwise in the description of their debate. The description needs to explain the meaning of the topic so there's as little confusion as possible. They should define their terms unless the meaning of terms is part of what they want the debate to be about. They should also list a few rules. Rules I've put in debate have always been based on the ways I've seen things go wrong in debate set-ups. For example, if two people are arguing whether this or that is the moral thing to do, it kind of destroys the purpose of the debate if somebody accepts the challenge only to say, "There's no such thing as morality." So I include a rule to avoid that happening.

I like your point that the description is a great place to make sure terms are clear. And I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with general debates. But how do you feel about general debates on this site in particular? As an example, what about "Evolution is Wrong" as a title. I feel most times if a see a title like this, I know it's just going to be a a lot of surface level arguments that cover multiple fields of science, and neither side has enough space to really nail down any particular argument. That's not always the case. I do think that in most cases, at least for large topics like that, it is best to make it more specific.

And by "this site," I am subconsciously including debateart.com almost without realizing it...

I've seen things go wrong in debate set-ups. For example, if two people are arguing whether this or that is the moral thing to do, it kind of destroys the purpose of the debate if somebody accepts the challenge only to say, "There's no such thing as morality."

I had one debate where I tried to do something like this (there is a term that I can't remember to describe this tactic). I figured I should try it at least once and I felt awful the entire time. I'm glad that I lost that debate. That's definitely a good point to think about how to avoid that with rules and definitions.

What got me thinking about writing this post was reading through a couple debates where vague resolutions led to squabbling over definitions and such. It really detracts from a debate when it takes two rounds just to figure out how to interpret the resolution.

On this site I don't mind general debates,

I think people ought debate that which interest them,

For some people, that's broad debates.

But, if you don't cover yourself in the description, it's leaving the debate open for people to debate something you weren't intending.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Evolution is Wrong,

I'd 'really hope they include 'what they want to debate Evolution being wrong about in the description.

I suppose I'd assume they think it's wrong about enough of it's claims, that it not be considered a fact or reasonable theory.

Debate would primarily end up being on Pro I think,

As it's 'easy to come up with this or that true in Evolution.

Pro would need to bring up various and 'enough claims, proof, logic by Evolution as flawed for it not to be true.

But that could be hard, as even if something is not 'Right, it's not always 'Wrong.

Additionally, I think theories often try to 'limit the number of claims they make to a few specifics.

Then again, some theories make 'many claims.

(Shrug) Maybe someone doesn't have something 'specific in mind of Evolution, but want a broad debate that they might have to do a broad reading and understanding of Evolution and other competing theories.

Additionally, I'd argue that broad topics can allow a larger variation.

First debate I had on Guns in America, lot of it focused on the American Revolutionary War,

2nd focused a lot on deaths caused by their easy access in America,

3rd? I don't know yet.

A broad debate, allows more points of view, more possible opponents, who might be more knowledgeable of specific ideas in the general argument.

Specific debate, might limit number of opponents to only those knowledgeable about that specific point.

Bringing what you don’t know to a debate doesn’t help.

Debby, I don't think that's necessarily true. Leaning's point does imply that broad debates can force someone to become generally more familiar with a topic without requiring in-depth technical knowledge. Though I would agree that going in blind with no background knowledge whatsoever is a recipe for disaster unless you are a quick learner and clear thinker.

I see a huge lack of sufficient Description [the text box within Debate to offer the initiator opportunity to define terms [specifically, keywords of the Resolution], special initrctions, such as "No original argument in the last round," and whatever else the initiator wants to describe.

I'm okay with debates on broad subjects. Part of the fun of debating for me is the challenge of making your points as forcefully as you can in as few words as you can. The broader the topic is, the more difficult that challenge is. For example, it would be a bigger challenge to defend the claim that "Christianity is true" than it would be to debate the claim that "God exists" or "Jesus rose from the dead." After all, for Christianity to be true, you'd have to defend BOTH of those statements about God and Jesus. That would be hard to do in one debate. But that's part of the fun.

Actually all three claims are difficult to prove. Why do you think Islam is overtaking Christianity?

Because more Christians are becoming Atheists?

That is from one extreme to another.

Looking at debates, I see one,

"Resolved: This house would legalize prostitution in the United States"

I suppose some debates are about specific truths of statements,

Others about whether enough people value 'various Outcomes and/or Deltiological values.

One could have a debate as

X is a liar,

or We should elect X for president 2028

Though, I could see X is a liar becoming semantics, lot's of people have lied at least once, but I'd suppose there's a subjective criteria for when in common use we call someone a liar.

X 'can be a liar,

X is 'likely to be a liar in X circumstances,

X has lied in over XX% of verbal statements.

We should elect X for president 2028 if we want to increase X in country.

Not everyone follows Debatecraft for election choices.

I think the description and rules are definitely two areas people should spend more time on to make sure the debate does not descend into chaos. I've seen too many already where key words in the resolution don't get defined until the middle of the debate.

This makes it difficult to judge as well because the voter needs to decide on a criteria for analyzing the debate rather than being told what is being debated.

100%

Some people make a title that is meant to deceive the reader in order to rig the debate.

I don't sweat much about the title because the meat and potatoes, the context, and the structure of the debate is all laid out in the description

I can see this to a degree. But in terms of best practice, I would say that the title should be the main standard by which voters judge the debate. The description adds context and rules to provide structural support, but the title should still be the foundation.

Lol, not mostly the debate but mostly judge by the title itself. 😂

The title doesn't even have to be the contention. It can just be a eye-catching phrase or statement that should be relevant to the subject

The title is both the description and subject of the debate.

I said the title should be the main standard by which voters should judge the debate. If the title is "Reclining Couches are Superior to Non-Reclining Couches," I'm going to determine the winner based on who most convincingly argued which type of couch is superior. You're right that there may be exceptions if the instigator makes that clear, which is why I said I believe it is the best practice. If the standard for voting is not made clear to the judge of the debate, each person will have to create their own standard, and it may vary from person to person.

I would argue that the description is the description of the debate.

A good title acts as a concise description of a topic, clearly communicating the main subject and purpose of a work to the reader, and serving as an invitation to read further. Titles are written to inform, capture interest, and sometimes even state the argument or method of a study, helping readers determine its relevance and prompting them to engage with the content

If the description is not the description, then what is the description?