The Debate Challenge

Resolution: There is no firm resolution on the debate other than that I allegedly cannot win the debate due to being forced to forfeit a round. However there is no obligation in the rule guidelines that mandates a debate with a forfeit from a person to be ruled an automatic win for the opponent. Therefore I ask voters to vote objectively based on the content of my two rounds of argument. In any case I will centre my arguments on this vague resolution and attempt to show what is required to win a debate, and why forfeiture does not necessarily lead to an automatic loss. Opening Arguments: Debates: In live debates, the debates are often won on presentation, style, wit and least importantly – the quality of arguments [1]. One does not necessarily need to be objectively correct in order to win. When up against someone with presentation, style and wit of their own, so long as the arguments sound on the surface convincing, then they often count as legitimate points for winning the debate. An excellent example of this type of a good debater is William Lane Craig [2], who with absolutely magnificent oratory skills and with good precision on the points he chooses to make. Very rarely does he waste time on low-impact arguments. Many lines he uses to justify his arguments are factually wrong under the analysis experts within the field of argument (cosmology), but it’s especially difficult in real-time to fact-check everything in real time, and space is very much limited. In written debates, such as on DDO there is a luxury of time to fact-check the arguments an opponent makes, but only a few invest the substantial amounts of time required in order to fact check every reference and statement an opponent makes. And often pointing every last detail of factually wrong statements the opponent makes. Therefore it is very much possible to win without having the objectively correct position; debates are much more about presenting ones core ideas and highlight some key points than it is to find the truth. If this were the case then criminal trials would only take a matter of a few hours to complete, this is obviously not the case. Forfeiture & Conduct Point: The forfeit was mandated in the rules of the debate, however the loss of a conduct point is not, it is merely asserted as a consequence of the forfeiture. I see no reason to accept this presupposition, in fact to imply as much is probably poor conduct from my opponent and therefore he should lose this point. Since the forfeit is agreed upon, I have violated no DDO rules in doing so [3], and therefore it in no way constituted poor conduct on my behalf. I would like to ask Pro whether I should wait out the 48 hours to automatically forfeit round 2, or if he would like me to actually do the round by simply stating “I forfeit this round” in order to complete this debate more quickly. I would like to refer you to the following debates by GodChoosesLife [4] and Rational_Thinker9119’s debates [5], who managed to even score the conduct point despite giving up a round. Furthermore, you can also see one of my own debates to see that even victories can be scored despite forfeiting multiple rounds given that the arguments are strong enough[6]. Quantity & Quality of Arguments: Now, in live debates you are allotted a specific period of time to speak, and on DDO you are allotted a specific quantity of characters to make your points (8,000 in this case). Pro has used just 1,226 (15%) of them for his opening round, which means if I give two full 8,000 character arguments, I will have at least 93% of the brute content Pro has given, and presumably a similar number of points raised. Moreover my opponent has 2 rounds to follow this, but has only 1 round of points to respond to. It is likely my opponent will have ‘too much space’, as 16,000 characters is likely unnecessary to address these arguments. Akin to fuelling your car to the brim to only drive 20 yards. Therefore I anticipate much of this handicap will be wasted by no fault of Pro’s. My Own Advantages: Moreover, I get to go last in this debate, and my opponent did not specify that the final round cannot be used to make new arguments. Therefore I can make a number of points in my final round to which my opponent will not get the chance to respond to. This is not something I intend to do, an excellent example of how this (admittedly underhand and immoral) tactic can work is seen in Matt Dillahunty’s debate with Father Hans Jacobse [7], Jacobse waited until the final round (he was to go last) to bring forth his criticisms regarding atheism/secularist leading to eugenics, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. In this case it was fortunate he had a Q&A session to be able to make some response to these remarks, but there is no such opportunity on DDO. Other Potential Tactics: Another tactic I could (but will not) use to neutralize this handicap is the Gish Gallop technique [8]: “The Gish Gallop - named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education. “[8] Spelling & Grammar: My opponent utilises rather sloppy formatting for his opening argument, with no clear paragraphs to break up his text. Furthermore, my opponent has done repeated usage of the word ‘you’ which is incorrect English grammar: “If it is not clear to you you have to prove you can beat me (because of your experience, support, my lack of evidence, or whatever you want, as long as it makes enough sense for the voters to vote you). ” Thereby my opponent concedes the S&G point already provided I make no mistakes of my own. Quality of Sources: My opponent mentions Rational Thinker’s debate; however he provides absolutely no reference to either the person involved, not the debate itself. The genuine rational thinker on DDO [9] is a member who has not been online for five years (! ). I can only assume Pro is talking about Rational_Thinker9119[10] who has a number of similar debates. However since Pro has not been forward with his sources, which he needs to being for the resolution proposed, then Pro is not doing what is required to fulfil his BoP. Furthermore Rational_Thinker9119 has more than one debate on the same topic, and it is not clear which one he is referring to, another lack of precision on my opponent’s part. Conclusion: As I have shown, there is no reason why someone who forfeits a rounds should automatically lose a debate, and in the context of this specific debate my opponent has made no concrete resolution, so in effect this debate is just a 2 round vs 2 round debate, due to my opponent’s lack of arguments in the first round. I listed a number of techniques one could use to gain an unfair advantage in a debate Back to Con! References: 1. . http://www.presenting-yourself.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.debate.org... 4. . http://www.debate.org... 5. . http://www.debate.org... 6. . http://www.debate.org... 7. . http://youtu.be... 8. . http://rationalwiki.org... 9. . http://www.debate.org... 10. . http://www.debate.org...