Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

Many thanks to Sieben for his post. I have assumed that in all the debates we are discussing, instigator is also Pro. My arguments may need to be rephrased slightly if this is not so. However this assumption should have no bearing on truth if any of the arguments. == Introduction and Definitions == My opponent has presented an 'inflationary' framework under which debate appears to be a broken form of argument. I can win this debate in three ways. If I can show that inflationary arguments do not give any undue advantage to either side. If I can show that such arguments can be anticipated and blocked by using valid rules. If I can present a simple and effective counter which will neutralize any advantage gained by using such a tactic. I accept Pro's definition of inflationary argument. However I will classify inflationary arguments, and use different arguments against different types. Symmetric Inflationary Debate (SID): A debate where both Pro and Con require increasing 'volume' of arguments to counter each other’s argument. Volume refers to the characters required in a written debate or time needed in a verbal debate. In SID, the Pro starts with a particular volume of argument. Con requires more volume than the Pro to counter it. In the next round, Pro needs even more volume to reemphasize her arguments. And so on and so forth. It is trivial to show that SID might run into limits on volume of argument imposed before the debate. Asymmetric Inflationary Debate (AID): A debate where one side, either Pro or Con, requires much more volume to present her arguments compared to the other side. An AID is likely when Pro is attacking some topic, while Con is defending it. Since it takes much more space to defend any institution rather than to attack it, it is likely that only one side (usually Con) will run into limits on volume. With these definitions in hand, I will proceed to rebut my opponent's argument. == Rebuttals == A) Linguistic Asymmetry: There is a difference in the way arguments and counter-arguments are composed. Pro argues that this is likely to lead to some inflation. I would like to assert that linguistic differences are unlikely to actually break any arguments. This is because a single argument can be worded in several ways. for example, I have reworded the reply in each of the cases presented by Pro, such that the reply has less number of characers. A: The sky is red Re1: The sky is not red => It isn't red Re2: The sky is blue => It is blue Re3: His sky argument has no source => No sources. Please note that rewording of this kind is required only when a debater actually runs into a volume limit. That is unlikely because, stringing together arguments of this kind is not so simple as Pro claims. The effort required in reducing character counts (as I outlined above) is much more simple than the effort required in creating such an argument. Since to secure an advantage is tough and countering it is simple, we can ignore linguistic asymmetry as a factor which breaks the debate. B) Logos asymmetry: I admit that this kind of asymmetry exists. However I will discuss it separately as per the classification I have presented. 1. Symmetric Inflationary Debate: Debating within time limits or word limit is an important skill of debating. If a debater is short of character limits or time limits, she has to drop some of her arguments and focus on key points. By definition of SID, the other debater will be forced to do the same. Finally the debate will judged based on the important points, which the debaters themselves choose. This kind of debate cannot be considered broken. I am sure that neither of us would like a debate without any limits on volume. No one would like to listen to a debate which extends like a 5 day test match in cricket [1]; Or to read one, where each round is written in form of a book. 2. Asymmetric Inflationary Debate: AID occurs when one side is defending an institution (religion, evolution) while the other side is attacking it. As defending an institution is usually tougher volumetrically rather than attacking it, an asymmetric burden can be placed on the debater defending the institution. The attacker can list arguments from multiple fields and demand that the defender provide answer to all of them. This kind of strategy is clearly abusive. What we need to know is that this kind of strategy is also widely acknowledged to be abusive. There are essentially two ways to counter it. Rule Blocks: Depending on topic, this kind of attack can be anticipated. A very valid rule block is to ask the opponent to limit herself to one or two strongest arguments. Counter: In case this kind of attack was not anticipated, the defender can simply point out the unequal burden. Address one or two of the points and ask the opponent to highlight one or two most important points in the next round so that they can counter it. In a debate, the judges are human beings. They are not computers which will award the debate to attacker just based on few points which were not addressed, even when the attack is clearly abusive. So if a debater is caught in a situation where she is not able to address all points because of unsymmetrical burden, she should simply highlight it. The attacker will be forced to reduce the points. In case the attacker refuses to pay heed, not only she is liable to lose the debate, but will definitely lose the conduct points as well. == Conclusion == While it is possible that an enterprising debater may try to take advantage of inflationary argument, a diligent opponent can feasibly counter it. It does not give a very big advantage to either side, though it does add one more dimension to the debate, making it even more fun! I have successfully presented how the defendant might counter an inflationary attack as outlined by my esteemed opponent. However it is possible that there is a deeper philosophical problem we need to think about. Is it possible for any human to ever phrase an argument, which can never be answered by another? Edgar Allan Poe pondered on a similar problem: "It may well be doubted whether human ingenuity can construct an enigma... which human ingenuity may not, by proper application, resolve." I look forward to further enigmatic arguments from Sieben! == Reference == [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...