Not to mention this entire topic is just setting up one gigantic strawman to knock over to make themselves feel nice about their bigotry but y'know...
> The human race and racial categories within the human race aren't defined the same way.
I...never said they were? My point is that we are all human beings, regardless of what our ethnicity or origins are, so stopping the buck at physical characteristics as a point to define personhood and whether they're worthy of validation and respect is really fucking strange (important note, I'm not saying you're claiming this. It *is* relevant because this is what my original comment has getting at in that Pro is implying that this is also a comparison to be made to justifying discrimination of trans people. Hence why I asked them what they were implying rather than what their definition was.)
I mean, unless you're about to suggest that appearances are a justifying characteristic to define whether someone is human or not, I'm not sure what you said really contradicts what I said.
Racist laws were based off of people's ethnicity and appearance. Genetically, thus biologically, we are all human.
The former.
Those are still a part of someone's ethnicity. So what's someone's biological race, other than human?
I uh...I don't think that Pro is talking about ethnicity. At least not entirely. Read their definition of transracism again.
I mean I've just been quietly laughing at the idea of this debate for a while, but since you seem to at least be pretending to be genuine, I'll humor you.
When you say 'biological race', what are you implying?
I'm not limiting my conception of what debate should be, but I can see how you would believe that. I'm 'limiting' my conception of debate because I have zero issues with debate as it exists within the status quo. As I mentioned before, there are multiple other avenues of having intellectually honest discussions that revolve around truth seeking first that are more prominent than competitive debate. Let us have our corner of the internet.
Like, it's cool that you want debate to be entirely about truth seeking, but to extend that out onto all aspects of debate that exist within the status quo is really strange considering that competitive debate in the status quo is absolutely not what you're describing and realistically wouldn't/couldn't exist under your conception. The entire concept of competition requires people to be able to take both sides, so if people only accepted debates on the side they believed in, then tournaments couldn't be run because there wouldn't be enough competitors and topics would be near impossible to create because anything that is provably true one way or another would be out (because then no one would intentionally defend the 'incorrect' side).
I get wanting discussion to be about finding truth and learning. That's just not what competitive debate is on any level. The world is full of other places that cater to exactly what you're looking for. This small corner of existence is not it.
> My endeavor is finding the truth first and foremost, mutual understanding second if the truth cannot be mutually reached. Good faith debate is how that happens
If this is what you're looking for, competitive debate is absolutely not the activity for you. The moment we have attached not only a winner and a loser to the result of the arguments made within a round, but also incentives to win (whether they be fake internet points on here or actual real world stakes like in highschool/college level tournaments), good faith goes out the window. It is, first and foremost, a competition. Honest and good faith discussion is something that, if it's lucky, takes a backseat.
It's fine to talk about how competitive debate "should" be, but to ignore what it is in pointless speculation of what it could be just brushes over the problems that exist that prevent it from being more.
> I think this is the root of our disagreement. You see debating as a game, I see it as a means to adjudicate disagreements.
I would agree. It's probably better to keep our conversation here for now.
I think if you're walking into a debate round looking for a legitimate truth seeking conversation, then you're hilariously naive. Real world discussions do not have winners and losers. Competitive debate is something that is extremely game-ified and to look at it as a way to persuade and help others better understand the world is incredibly wholesome, but incredibly misguided. It's the reason why there are some topics I refuse to do a debate over because there are topics that I'm infinitely more interested in truth-seeking and helping others better understand things than I am in practicing my debating skills.
Before I go to respond to your last message, I'll point out a couple of points I raised previously that you didn't mention. If you'd like to address them please do so:
- Always giving Pro the BoP gives Con an unfair advantage.
- Always giving Pro the BoP skews debating from who is the better debater to who is the better res writer.
- BoP =/= side selection
- What is a weighing argument?
Onto the actual discussion:
> Belief options are not limited to 'I believe X is true' or 'I believe X is false'. Neutral is not only a legitimate position, in many cases it's the only defensible position.
Debate resolutions do not care about what you believe. Taking a neutral stance does not grant you offense towards affirming/negating the resolution. In accepting a debate and entering the debate round, you have accepted a stance to defend one side of a topic. If you do not defend that side, you will lose. Simple as.
> Trying to mandate that your opponent affirm the opposite position and cannot simply refute your case, is a tell of remarkable intellectual insecurity.
1. In what world is this relevant to offense and defense towards affirming/negating a resolution?
2. Moreover, in what world is this even true? If anything saying that you *shouldn't* have to actively affirm your side of the resolution is a sign of intellectual insecurity because you're suggesting that you *can't* defend it. Either that or just personal insecurity in that you don't think you're a good enough debater to defend it. Pick your poison.
Moreover, actively affirming your side of the res doesn't preclude you from disproving or engaging with your opponent's side of the debate. Both sides should 100% be engaging with each other, but both sides should also be giving their opponent something to engage with.
> Well first of all, refuting your opponent's arguments is not off topic
I can absolutely spend 100% of my time attacking my opponent's arguments in ways that don't touch on the substance of the argument in any way. There's a myriad of ways to do so, including pointing out logical fallacies, disproving warrants made within arguments, and questioning the links between certain arguments and their solvency. None of those arguments make any stance on the actual topic, but simply state "your argument sucks".
> But that aside, that's not insane, that's how logic works.
Then again with the judicial trial example. Trials =/= debate rounds. If you would like to draw comparisons, please make sure that they are actually relevant to the actual topic. For example, a relevant comparison would be "In a debate round with the resolution "Targeted Killing is Morally Permissible", I present evidence that targeted killing is morally permissible until util framings. You challenge me and show that my evidence is invalid. The outcome is you have only made arguments that say I am wrong, and none that say you are right. Therefore, the only side that has any risk of offense at the end of the round under util is me. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed."
> This is just getting stupid. No one is arguing that anyone not have to defend "their side".
And this is why I've started directly quoting you. Your argument so far has been whoever has the BoP has to argue their case, and whoever does not simply has to refute their opponent. This means that within a debate, if I do not have the BoP, I can spend 100% of the time not addressing the topic and simply just deconstructing my opponent's arguments, and win the debate without having to actually address the topic. That's insane.
> The question the BoP addresses is; what is each person's side?
That's...not what the BoP is. Like, I'm trying to think if there's a *more* incorrect thing to try to shift what a BoP is onto, and I think this is actually the most wrong you can get. What you're describing is literally just picking who is Pro/Aff and who is Con/Neg on the topic. There, sides have been selected.
> Having the BoP means the burden is on you to argue for the affirmative. Not having the BoP means you need to argue the negation.
I hate this mindset. I hated this mindset a decade ago when it was running around on DDO. Side selection =/= BoP. Not only does this inherently give Con a massive advantage in literally every debate, regardless the topic, but it also just makes zero logical sense. I can defend Con in one topic, then switch the resolution from being a positive statement to a negative statement and defend Pro the next debate. The arguments I'm making have not changed, yet suddenly the burden structure has? The game changes from who is a better debater to who can meticulously craft the perfect statement that absolves them of all responsibility of having to engage in the topic. Fuck outta here with that logic.
> And throughout this chat, you've totally ignored the fact that in many if not most cases, being neutral on a proposition is the only reasonable position. A perfect example of this is in a criminal trial
I love how on the competitive debate website where we're discussing competitive debate as a hobby, you accuse me of ignoring your examples of how proving things works in *checks notes* not competitive debate.
> Not accepting one side of a true dichotomy doesn't require one to accept the opposite. This is why we address propositions one at a time.
1. Big word make me sound smart so I am smart. Wait why do big word no talk about what I talk about?
2. Literally speaking, if something is a true dichotomy and I say one side is wrong, then I am, in fact, saying that the other side is right. That is how things that are mutually exclusive work.
3. Competitive debate addresses one proposition at a time. The proposition is the resolution. There can, and should, be multiple ways to address said proposition, but everything should always link back to either proving or disproving the resolution. That is how competitive debate works.
> The issue isn't space, it's focus.
God damn, I'm getting my cardio in trying to keep up with you every time you shift the goalposts.
> resolving a fundamental difference requires both sides to stay focused on the issue at hand
Every argument within the round is supposed to be related back to the resolution, so if people are losing focus within the debate round that's just a skill issue on both sides - them for losing focus on making arguments that aren't on topic, and you for not calling them out.
> Uh, yeah I addressed this already.
If by addressed you mean mentioned it in a way that demonstrates you don't actually understand what I'm saying, then yes, you have. So lets take a step back. When I say the term "weighing argument", do you understand what I mean? For example, if I make the argument of "They're saying X creates economic profit, and I'm saying X kills people. Judges should prefer my argument because of A, B, and C.", do you understand how that functions within a debate round?
> This is exactly why I reject the notion that each side should have a BoP - because then each side has to not only make their own case but refute their opponent's case at the same time
Oh no! The horror! Anything but having to defend your own side! Whatever will we do?!
Part of me wants to leave it there for comedic effect, but that's not super productive. No, depth is not an issue, specifically on websites like here where character limits allow us to go as deep into literally every point as we could ever want to. In competitive debate IRL then there's some vague semblance of merit to this, but I've never seen a stock debate where things weren't addressed in a sufficient level of depth while both sides are presenting their own cases and attacking their opponent's.
There's also a pretty crucial difference that I don't think you're grasping in that there's a difference between completely dropping an opponent's argument and making weighing arguments that say "My argument is more important/more relevant than my opponent's argument because x, y, and z".
> As the instigator you get to write the resolution and you get to clarify it.
Your point? If you don't like the definitions and "clarifications" I make, then challenge them within the debate. inb4 "can't/shouldn't challenge definitions", as that's the entire point of theory/topicality arguments. If you want to see actual cop outs, it's the people who stick all their definitional arguments in the description box and say "don't accept if you don't agree to these definitions", which is such a blatant noob snipe tactic.
> If you believe something rationally you should be able to defend it.
And this doesn't also apply to the person accepting the debate because...why again?
> Refuting arguments made by your opponent is a burden, and certainly exists in debate.
Not really. If my opponent is making an argument that isn't super important or is being outweighed by another argument I'm making, why waste time addressing it when I can just win on a more important area of the debate instead? Or, in the case of more kritical argumentation, if my case acts as a preclusionary element to my opponent's case, I may not even need to address their arguments at all, provided I'm winning on my own case.
Is it a good idea to respond to your opponent's arguments anyway? Of course. Do you strictly *have* to directly engage your opponent's arguments to win a debate? Nope.
Hai, it's me. I'm claiming the "BoP" is the only burden that exists in competitive debate, and it's always split between both sides.
That's all fine and dandy in the context of a typical discussion on a topic, but within the realm of competitive debate what you said is actually nonsensical. If, in a debate, you stand up and make arguments about how aliens are coming to wipe us all out and destroy all human life, you are, as you put it, putting in the work. That's true independent of the actual factual validity of the things you are saying, as it's my job to disprove the things that you are saying. If I'm *not* doing that, then judges ought to consider what you are saying as true within the contexts of the resolution.
Which makes the entire concept of BoP within the realm of debate nonsense. Both sides have the requirement to prove that their side is correct, or at least more correct than the other side in the case of uncertainty. Trying to say that solely one side has to prove anything is a hilariously bad tactic that no one should actually be allowed to get away with, and massively skews the debate if they actually do get away with it.
I've always found the notion of "burden of proof" to just be kind of ridiculous. Even in the insanely game-ified world of competitive high school/college level debate, the notion of "burdens of proof" in the way we use them on here is just asking to get theory run against you. In reality, both sides have a duty to defend the validity of their side of the resolution, regardless of topic. Contrary to outward appearances of a "Pro/Aff" and a "Con/Neg" side to things, both sides are defending a statement that can be boiled down to "X is true" or "We should do X", which is a positive statement that begs warranting.
It is very good, I just have PTSD from it being run by literally everyone in LD for a solid 2-3 years, regardless of topic or side. It got to the point that not only could most judges (including myself at the time) recite the text from the cards in the framework verbatim from memory, but as soon as judges heard the first card name in the framework would just put their pens down and stop flowing until the framework arguments were done, not because we weren't evaluating them, but we already knew what they all said so it just saves space on our papers to flow other arguments.
Like, it was *everywhere*.
Do you think making a philosophical justification for the framework along the lines of structural violence/oppression would've been helpful/better?
Thanks for the vote!
I'll ask you the same questions I asked Savant:
What did you think about the justification for my framing? As much as I like relying on the words of Cheeto Man (I don't, I hate it), I feel like it was pretty easily attackable.
Also, I think my contention level offense could use some work. What would you think about reorganizing my offense to include a lot of the R3 and R4 turns (specifically the Strait of Hormuz attacks, the resumed missile strikes, and the civilian casualties) into a third and fourth contention within the case?
I'm going to let you stew on your answer to the first question and the implications of what you just wrote.
As for the second one, that's fucking hilarious. Want to do a debate? Topic "Resolved: Objective Morality Exists". You take Pro I take Con. 20k character limit if you want something in depth, 10k if you want something short. 3-4 rounds. 3 day to 1 week response time.
I can't find it T_T my old high school team had a dropbox where we shared evidence and resources but I've lost access to it, it's not anywhere saved in my old emails, and I don't have my old laptop where I had a bunch of files saved on them anymore. It's a fucking tragedy </3
I did find kritikal arguments like human suffering good that's just effectively reading off a bunch of Nietzche that's equally ridiculous, though.
Actually, let me see if I can find the specific argument. It's like piles of like 20 year old debate cases but it's an entertaining read.
It's such a fun "philosophical bullshit" argument to make.
In LD, a lot of kritikal and policy based arguments will rely on links to nuclear war leading to things like extinction to have an impact under standard framings. So I just start reading off a bunch of Jean Beaudrillard and effectively just say "Do it, you won't. Coward."
The amount of eye rolls I've gotten from judges when I've read my arguments and refutations...
Oh no, like I'm saying I made the argument that nuclear war is good. Yes, I have been told that I can be a bit of a psychopath at times.
Lmao, I come from an LD debate background, and have made arguments in tournament rounds like:
- Nuclear war good
- Zombie apocalypse good
and others. I don't like relying on the assumption of "my opponent probably won't contest this".
Interesting. I feel like those would typically just beg the question of why those historical examples are preferable, which would just end up relying on a separate philosophical justification anyway, but I can see circumstances where they're helpful as like sub justifications.
What do you mean by analogies to historical events in this case?
