Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

Keeping Con's tags... (he has new tags every round) Debating within limits is skill: Of course people who systematically win debates have "debate skill". But we are evaluating debate as a form of argumentation, not a generic contest. Con takes it for granted that you can still run any argument even under his AID block. But since it limits the argumentative options to debaters, the block violates rule 3. Con's cricket analogy is flawed. Cricket isn't "broken". Nothing can be generically "broken". Debate and Cricket are "fair" because the same techniques are available to all participants. But fairness doesn't ensure argumentation quality, which is the feature in question. Abusive AID: Con wants to let debaters off the hooks if their volumetric burdens become too great. That's fine as far as fairness and competitiveness goes, but it results in non-argumentation. == Rebuttals == Undue Advantage: Con again focuses on "undue advantage" aka fairness. I already provided a very simple derivation of why debate is intrinsically fair, but fairness is a red herring. Con's implicit solubility comes from judicial activism. Even if debaters give each other AIDs, judges step in and interpret arguments to their logical conclusion. This is necessarily a source of abuse because it means the outcome of debate does not depend on how debaters handled their arguments, but rather how judges handled their arguments. Judges wind up casting their votes for debaters based on something they never did. I also pointed out in the previous round that this is a silent concession. Arguments cannot be resolved by debate alone, and therefore an external body of judges must intervene. The external body can succeed because it does not have volume limits. Definition Dispute: Actually we disagreed with 1., which stated that argumentation can still be harmed even if debate is fair. Linguistic Asymmetry: Extend that in the "Sky is Red" examples, you can't use indefinite articles (it) without context which requires you to C&P. His suggested qualifier of "all" is only going to be usable against certain argument chains, and so does not provide general solubility. Con continues that he thinks linguistic asymmetry is trivial. He doesn't like my example of CiRrk's debate because he thinks CiRrk is escaping linguistic asymmetry. He misunderstands. CiRrk is actually using linguistic asymmetry by excessively abbreviating everything to give himself more volume, indicating that he is extremely pressed up against volume limits and therefore in danger of dropping (CiRrk dropped several) arguments. Con's best case scenario is that linguistic asymmetry can be used defensively, but expanding your own content volume is just an "advantage". Attack/defense don't have any real meaning in this context. It's like taking an extra 30 seconds at the end of your speech. Lastly, Con complains debates without limits would also be unbalanced. Sure. Maybe debate is broken with/without volume limits (though it is broken for different reasons). SID: Lots of red herrings here. Accessibility to beginners and entertainment value don't matter. Just focus on debate vis-a-vis argumentation. AID: 1. Failure to Anticipate: Con thinks that AID block is possible in most cases. But if fails sometimes then his rule doesn't provide general solubility. Con also seems to think it's pretty easy to predict AID, but since there are infinitely many possible arguments available at all times, it's impossible to methodologically prove what will come next and then block it. 2. Limits Argument: Con refers us to his Cricket analogy, which focuses on fairness. The bottom line is there are logically valid argumentative strategies that Con won't let people use because they're too long in rebuttal. This harms argumentation even if it enhances fairness or readability. 3. AID within a single argument: Con thinks a single argument experiencing AID exhibits lack of skill. Bad debaters might handle it worse, but there are some arguments that are fundamentally longer to rebut than they are to construct. So single arguments can experience AID and are therefore not blocked by Con's rule which means he loses solubility because we still get AIDs. 4. Small AID pushing debate over limits: Con says that small cases come down to skill differentials. First, this is a red herring because economization skill doesn't matter. Second, this is non-topical because we're assuming both debaters have perfect strategy. Since AID can persist even under the best competitors, I extend harms. 5. Difficulty Proving AID: Con says AID has to be clear before his rule can be invoked. So I extend "unclear" AID to show how debate is harmed. Additionally, even if AID is really obvious, debaters still have to A) point it out and B) justify the rule. I would argue against the rule by using some of my arguments here. Then, all debates are in danger of becoming a debate about AID rules which further frustrates its argumentative potential. Meta Arguments Series: 1. Con says AID challenges are only valid in very clear cases, so extend that he fails unclear AID blocks. 2. It only became clear ad hoc that we were getting SID and not AID. We could have gotten AID if Con had chosen a different argumentative strategy, or if I had economized like a boss. 3. My recursive argument could go on to infinity, but I am under no obligation to complete it. Worst case scenario is that I just drop it off arbitrarily, but I think I've demonstrated that the argument could go on to infinity, which is sufficient for my purposes. ix) Meta-Meta arguments Con dropped this... the tagging is kind of messed up but you can still follow it. Extend to show that arguing about AID itself creates AIDs. There are two *argumentative* possibilities which may or may not result in more AIDs. Con has chosen the third non-arugmentative option and just dropped it, which ironically results in salubrious deflation :P 4. Even if the implementation of anti-AIDs rules are done by the books, there is still potential for abuse if the rule is introduced after debaters have committed to argumentative positions. 5. Con is wrong about judge intervention. Judges can vote down abusive arguments, but only if debaters prove abuse and ask them to. If judges actively identify abuse they are handling debater's arguments for them, therefore invalidating their ballots declaring which debater beat the other. == Conclusion == Constant shifting of goalposts by Con. His arguments about fairness don't matter. We are investigating debate as a form of argumentation. My core thesis is that Volume Caps limit argumentation, and this is especially harmful to argumentation exchange if debaters are shouldered with unequal volumetric burdens. Con basically admits that "debate is broken as a form of argumentation" when he invokes judge intervention. I.e. arguments cannot be discussed properly in debate and therefore must be considered by judges without volume limits. Con's proposed rule would at best achieve fairness. But debate is intrinsically fair so it doesn't matter. Con's rule has the nasty side effect of categorically prohibiting certain arguments. He won't let debaters run AID arguments even if they are logically correct on a certain topic. This necessarily inhibits argumentation, so his rule is creating the problem it tries to solve. (Con's rule may be better than the alternative. But either way, debate is broken for argumentation) Lastly, Con thinks my observation that nuclear weapons exist is irrelevant. The possibility of nuclear warfare far outweighs any of Con's dubious benefits. It's not clear why Con bites into this disadvantage, but I'll just emptily speculate that if people follow Con's advice and introduce anti AID rules, they'll spend so much time arguing about them that they won't be able to resolve their differences diplomatically, resulting in global nuclear holocaust.