Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

Before I start to answer my opponent point by point, we should be clear on few aspects. Debating within limits is skill: Any argument can be inflated beyond any limits. You can debate the number of angels that can dance on head of a pin for a really long time [1]. It is part of debating skill to limit your arguments. This may mean, rephrasing your arguments to be concise. It may mean focusing on key points. This does not mean that the debate is broken. Actually this leads to better quality debates, which focus on key aspect and assists the audience in making up its mind. In general, if you cannot complete you debate within limits, you lose. And the loss is appropriate, since you are lacking in one key component of debate. This does not violate the 3rd rule of valid arguments. The debaters are still free to bring in any valid argument. They may have to rephrase some arguments, while other arguments may be unfeasible if they want to win the debate. One of the most exciting shot in cricket is the 'hook' [2]. You can only 'hook' a ball when the bowler is bowling fast and he attempts a short pitched delivery. If the bowler is a 'spinner' or bowling full pitched, the batsman cannot feasibly 'hook' the ball. Does this mean that cricket is broken because the batsman is not in a position to play a particular shot in a particular situation? Abusive AID: The above rule has one exception. That is when one side is defending an issue and has clearly much more volumetric burden. Identifying such cases is easy. The attacker in this case lists multiple points and expects the defender to answer each one of them. In such cases, an appeal to judges can be easily made and should not lead to any dispute. == Rebuttals == Undue advantage: If we debate spam, the result will be a spam debate, which will be naturally broken. However we have previously assumed that the debate is a serious one and if I can show that there is no undue advantage to either side, the result is a serious debate which is decided by weight of arguments. This is sufficient to prove my burden. Definition Dispute: As we agree that the dispute is irrelevant, I will ignore it. Linguistic Asymmetry: I provided clear rebuttals to examples provided by my opponent. I can only provide a counter-example, after he has presented an example. In case of C&P attempts, adding a qualifier like ALL may provide a fitting solution. I did accept that linguistic asymmetry is possible. However as I pointed out, it is difficult to abuse in practice. Moreover, counters for such attacks are usually easy. As a result they do not break a debate. If they are appended to the end of debate, they can be attended in similar ways. The example presented by Pro works against him. The burden on CiRrk was clearly non-linguistic (as Pro acknowledges). CiRrk was able to relieve the burden up to some extent by using those abbreviations. That is clearly another simple technique which can be used to escape from any attack based on linguistic asymmetry. Pro believes that debates without limits will be more balanced. I disagree. If there are no limits, the debators can continue to inflate there arguments, ensuring that the debate becomes a trolling competition. All such debates will end up as draw, ensuring that debate becomes a broken form of argumentation! SID: In SID, some 'otherwise valid approaches' do become unfeasible or difficult to implement. However this does not break the debate. Hook shot is not feasible against slow bowlers or spinners. It does not mean that cricket as a sport is broken. The side which has the BoP usually has a better control over the number of arguments. Even if this is not so, all they have to do is to rephrase or rearrange the arguments to make sure they are within the limits and pass on the pressure to the other side. The shift of pressure will be automatic since it is a SID. This makes the debate more interesting! AID: Failure to anticipate: Anticipating AID is possible in most cases. It can be predicted by the topic of the debate. It can be anticipated through the history of debaters or from records of other debates on similar topic. On other hand, my argument does not hinge on AID being anticipated in all cases. Here is an example of debate where the instigator has successfully anticipated and blocked AID [3]. Limits argument: The attacker is still free to choose the arguments he wants to use. Refer to my 'hook' analogy to realize why it does not break the debate. AID within single argument: As I explained earlier, any argument can be inflated. However, if the defendant is unable to argue a single point within the specified limits, I think it is a clear case of lack of skill. Small AID pushing debates over limits: Then it becomes a test of defendant's skill, as to how she can manage to reduce the volume of his arguments by a small quantity, bringing it back under the limit. In the only example you presented, we can see that CiRrk managed to perform this task successfully, even when he was debating against a formidable opponent. The final result was decided by the merits of arguments and not the inflationary pressure. Difficulty proving AID: As I explained, debaters have to make full effort to ensure that they debate within limits. It is only in case of clear abuse that they can appeal. The clear abuse can be identified by asymmetric volume and the attacker presenting several arguments and expecting answers for each of them. Meta arguments series: Since the AID challenge is valid only in very clear cases, it should not lead to meta arguments. This debate is following SID pattern rather than AID pattern, and hence Pro should make his best effort to limit his argument, else he will lose. Pro attempts to inflate his own arguments beyond the limits to prove that debate is broken. To do so, he has attempted to create a deliberately recursive argument. If Pro fails to complete the debate within limits, it means he loses. He cannot prevent it - since as per his own position, he cannot introduce any rule against it. But wait, this is what he was trying to prove! This means is that his argument is deeply paradoxical. I am sure he will make his best effort to explain the paradox; however we need to be clear on one aspect. Pro cannot win the debate without winning it! Pro asserts that the AID rule can be abusive. As I have shown that the AID rule can be invoked successfully only in clear cases, that problem should not exist. If the defender incorrectly calls for this rule, chance is high that she will lose the debate. Pro complains that it invites judges to 'intervene and identify abuse'. But that is something that judges always do in case of abuse! Unless he wants to prohibit judges from judging on his debates, I fail to see his point. Judges would not have to argue over application of this rule, as this can be applied only in very clear cases. == Conclusion == By trying to break his own debate, Sieben states that this debate is 'lulsy'. I disagree. My position on this debate has been quite clear and consistent. However I agree with him that his arguments are recursive, paradoxical and 'lulsy'. And also "irrelevant". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3] http://www.debate.org...