Any debate vets here..?

[JudgeJudy2020]

Debate?
Whoever talks the fastest and loudest wins, right?

There should be a debate where it is argued that the electoral college is vastly superior to the popular vote.
All evidence shall be Jordan Peterson quotes.
Large rats let little rats win 30% of the time so they will keep playing, thus nature proves electoral college > popular vote.

There's no link provided between electoral college and pop vote. What are you trying to imply with the imagined link..?

 

[Kaitzilla]

There's no link provided between electoral college and pop vote. What are you trying to imply with the imagined link..?

In the last Presidential election Hillary got 65.8 million votes versus Trump's total of 63 million.
Yet Trump won the election with 304 electoral votes to Hillary's 227.
There were even 7 faithless electors.

Modern arguments have pointed to this unfair result as the main reason for abolishing the electoral college system and just electing the President through popular vote.

This isn't the 1st time something like this has happened, but the 5th out of 45 presidents.

Traditionalists would argue that the EC system, while unfair, still produces the best results because the small states are not overwhelmed completely by the large states with huge populations.

Instead of only campaigning in mega cities like New York and LA, politicians start out by visiting Iowa.

I brought in the rats example to show that even in nature where the larger animal can win 100% of the time, it purposely handicaps itself so that it only wins 70% of the time so that play can continue forever.
If the small rat loses every time, it will stop playing.

The USA is similiar.
If the population centers dominated 100% of the decisions as their power implies they should, the country would have broken up decades ago.
The Senate was constructed using a similar logic.

So on the whole, the electoral college remains a better system for electing the president than popular vote.
The big states get most of the EC votes, the runt states get a guaranteed minimum 3 EC votes, and everyone is mostly happy with the result.
The Democrats might even pay some attention to the concerns of the Great Lake states in 2020.


Both sides could have a good argument, so I figured EC vs. Popular vote for President might be a good debate topic.

I don't actually think the entire thing could be done with just Jordan Peterson quotes.


I have zero experience with formal debates, so I apologize for cluttering up your debate thread.
Just trying to increase forum enthusiasm for new things.

 

[Arwon]

On the A point, that is exactly not what the second example was.
Extension: One could argue you dropped the second example, and all of the analysis. (hint: ask for links)

On the B point, the spitting/spreading ain't that bad. It is cogent and fast (ex 2). As such, who do you think won and why in the Ex 2.

To add: Typically it is CEDA that has the spit talk that leaves the round to be judged on evidence cards, much less the others. Time limits engender that, but also engender construction and focus.

In all fairness, I did invite a debate about debate. Nevertheless to carry/win such a debate one has to carry/win the significance portion of the topic. If I am being more of a hard-ass, you don't carry significance within any debate paradigm, even armchair. You just complain about the Affirmative. That's a lose.

Bad topic ID, let alone bad presentation of an otherwise good argument, is outweighed by even weak analysis that is topical, in terms of significance. God help you if you get a strong pairing.

this is pretty weird mate

 

[Truthy]

Well that's a shame. LD actually has a policy format, though it's rare and I've only see it in collegiate debate. Single pairings, stock issues.

Anyways, just wondering if anyone peddling policy positions here can muster an actual case for the claim.

Policy shenanigans were always infiltrating LD. Honestly just dreadful. The spreading. The jargon. The undulating and gasping for air. Fortunately, judges tended to realize the best debaters eschewed that crap.

 

[JudgeJudy2020]

I am not sure debate logic can win the hearts and minds of the OT forums.

I've been trying to impress the monsters lairing in here with my towering intellect and vast vocabulary for years and haven't succeeded a single time.

so by debate logic do you mean 'logic' ..?

Policy shenanigans were always infiltrating LD. Honestly just dreadful. The spreading. The jargon. The undulating and gasping for air. Fortunately, judges tended to realize the best debaters eschewed that crap.

LD is technically just a format, it's not necessarily a value round. That said, it is typically value. I do get that making a value round about net benefits is a dumb move. Here here on that.

No passion. Just like most porn, just going through the motions.

Who should have won and why..?

Moderator Action: Please do not multi-post. The +Quote function exists for a reason. ~ Arakhor

 

[Arwon]

Anyways if people are interested, this is the final from the World Universities Debating Championship I went to in 2010. Definitely one of the better debates I've watched.

Https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD6F5EDB86B27746D


Harvard, London School of Economics, Oxford and Sydney were the four teams. Sydney (Closing Opposition, the 6th and 8th speakers) won.

British Parliamentary is the style, 4 teams, 15 minutes prep, points of information (interjecting questions). The topic was "This House Would Show the Full Horrors of War".

Aside from British Parliamentary, ie world championship style, the other main other style we did in Australia was 3 vs 3 with a half hour preparation. That's the style used for the Australasian championship. Less fun because there's only 2 teams.

New Zealand has a style with 2 minutes prep, I dunno much about it tho.

 

[JudgeJudy2020]

Anyways if people are interested, this is the final from the World Universities Debating Championship I went to in 2010. Definitely one of the better debates I've watched.

Https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD6F5EDB86B27746D


Harvard, London School of Economics, Oxford and Sydney were the four teams. Sydney (Closing Opposition, the 6th and 8th speakers) won.

British Parliamentary is the style, 4 teams, 15 minutes prep, points of information (interjecting questions). The topic was "This House Would Show the Full Horrors of War".

Aside from British Parliamentary, ie world championship style, the other main other style we did in Australia was 3 vs 3 with a half hour preparation. That's the style used for the Australasian championship. Less fun because there's only 2 teams.

New Zealand has a style with 2 minutes prep, I dunno much about it tho.

BP, Worlds and even NPDA are all very similar, though Worlds in the States puts more emphasis on uniqueness between agreeing teams. 20-30 min prep for unprepared resolutions is pretty standard. Much prefer new topics each round to the same one all year.

 

[Kaitzilla]

so by debate logic do you mean 'logic' ..?

Yes, exactly.

The OT forums are a vast resource of English speaking gamers from around the world, but logic rarely sways them.

I recommend avoiding or carefully using the word "you" to avoid heated responses as I've learned in the past attacking ideas only to get dogpiled.

Personal experience is valued most highly, followed by awesome quips and then links to good content.

Logically well thought out arguments are good too, but the weakest point will get pounced upon and the stronger stuff ignored.

RD (Red Diamond) threads are the high quality ones you might be interested in, as they are taken more seriously and moderated more heavily.

 

[Synobun]

I don't think you'll get the debate experience anywhere on CFC. We're just people talking in our spare time. Maybe if staff paid us like they do debate teams we'd have a bit more rigor...

 

[Truthy]

Hey, some people effortpost back and forth at each other! Those occasional (effortful, good faith) debates are the main reason I visit OT.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We tried formal debates a couple-three times. It was meh.

And I'm not just saying that because @warpus wiped the floor with me

 

[JudgeJudy2020]

As I noted they were just going through the motions.
They both lost because they have no passion.
It is difficult to have passion if you are pretending which is why most porn is bad.

That is a very poor argument. Here's why.

I can dispassionately state there i robust evidence to link smoking with cancer. Someone can reply passionately that they disregard the evidence, and that passionate argument would still not hold water.

Also, I think that both folks brought a decent level of gusto to the event.

Yes, exactly.

The OT forums are a vast resource of English speaking gamers from around the world, but logic rarely sways them.

I recommend avoiding or carefully using the word "you" to avoid heated responses as I've learned in the past attacking ideas only to get dogpiled.

Personal experience is valued most highly, followed by awesome quips and then links to good content.

Logically well thought out arguments are good too, but the weakest point will get pounced upon and the stronger stuff ignored.

RD (Red Diamond) threads are the high quality ones you might be interested in, as they are taken more seriously and moderated more heavily.

Personal experience is called the availability heuristic in the industry.

If someone zero's in on the minor stuff and drops the critical arguments then they haven't carried their burdens. That's 101 stuff.

 

[Synobun]

Personal experience is called the availability heuristic in the industry.

If someone zero's in on the minor stuff and drops the critical arguments then they haven't carried their burdens. That's 101 stuff.

Very unfortunate that we'd receive a poor grade.

 

[JudgeJudy2020]

You mean you don't get paid



Stating facts or robust evidence because you believe that you are informing people can be done with passion even if it does not show.
Someone can reply passionately that they disregard the evidence, but it is not real passion if they are faking it.

And in either case the level of passion is irrelevant to the strength of the argument.

 

[JudgeJudy2020]

In the last Presidential election Hillary got 65.8 million votes versus Trump's total of 63 million.
Yet Trump won the election with 304 electoral votes to Hillary's 227.
There were even 7 faithless electors.

Modern arguments have pointed to this unfair result as the main reason for abolishing the electoral college system and just electing the President through popular vote.

This isn't the 1st time something like this has happened, but the 5th out of 45 presidents.

Traditionalists would argue that the EC system, while unfair, still produces the best results because the small states are not overwhelmed completely by the large states with huge populations.

Instead of only campaigning in mega cities like New York and LA, politicians start out by visiting Iowa.

I brought in the rats example to show that even in nature where the larger animal can win 100% of the time, it purposely handicaps itself so that it only wins 70% of the time so that play can continue forever.
If the small rat loses every time, it will stop playing.

The USA is similiar.
If the population centers dominated 100% of the decisions as their power implies they should, the country would have broken up decades ago.
The Senate was constructed using a similar logic.

So on the whole, the electoral college remains a better system for electing the president than popular vote.
The big states get most of the EC votes, the runt states get a guaranteed minimum 3 EC votes, and everyone is mostly happy with the result.
The Democrats might even pay some attention to the concerns of the Great Lake states in 2020.


Both sides could have a good argument, so I figured EC vs. Popular vote for President might be a good debate topic.

I don't actually think the entire thing could be done with just Jordan Peterson quotes.


I have zero experience with formal debates, so I apologize for cluttering up your debate thread.
Just trying to increase forum enthusiasm for new things.

There is some good clash with this topic. It seems like your case here argues the net benefits of EC outweigh the possible benefits of a popular vote. I would point out that you diminish the case a bit when you say, "This isn't the 1st time something like this has happened, but the 5th out of 45 presidents," because most of the time the results in both EC and pop vote are the same.

Regarding the rats at play, I guess I am just not following how that connects, but it seems like you are speculating on the motives of those critters.

Real passion is better than fake. Fake arguments can have no passion only good acting like Meg Ryan's fake.

You obviously enjoy having fake arguments.
I can see the point of being given a topic and then debating it you want to be a politician, salesman etc but I would not enjoy it.
There are enough topics here, and elsewhere, to debate that you do not need to take a fake position if you are just arguing for enjoyment.
Also if you have no view on a subject you can still ask probing questions or point out when someone is talking rubbish.
I view two people having a fake argument, unless they are doing for their career, in the same way as two people going to bed and both faking it and knowing that they are both faking it.
But you enjoy it, some people do not know why I like playing civ.

Thesis versus anti-thesis produces synthesis - Ancient Greece to now. That a dyed in the wool civ fan, and likely history buff would not see the value of the dialectic is a bit surprising.

At a minimum, when we learn how to construct good arguments it allows us to deconstruct bad ones down the road, as well as make better advocacy for good notions. If you are passionate about a topic, but can't carry your burdens, you are doing a disservice to something you care about.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

debate? you mean something like Ben Shapiro uTTerlY RAVaGES st00pid FEMinist Orificies with his THR0BBing L4NCE of LOGIC (warning: Graphic)

I hate youtubt so goddamn much, *** off i don't want to watch any jordan peterson videos adwdawfagasrghwsrhsrh

 

[JudgeJudy2020]

You can learn to construct good arguments when you care about something just as you can fail to learn when you don't care.

Do you think people can do work well that they are not passionate about? Do you think that could ever be important? For example, is doing good janitorial work in hospitals important..? Do you suppose janitors are passionate about mopping?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Do you suppose janitors are passionate about mopping?

talking like you're in a debate is one thing, talking like the other person is mentally stunted is another thing. you just come off as a huge Richard and I hope you're aware of that my friend

I know you framed that question expecting a certain answer, but the answer is Yes, hopefully they're passionate about it, and if they're not passionate, and lord forbid they're not conscientious, then they might do sloppy work and risk someone's life.

counter question: do you think scientists are just randomly assigned a research topic from a huge list, or do you think their subjective interest and passion is paramount to their research? who do you think is more rigorous, one that is actively interested in his field of expertise, or one who doesn't give a stink?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Do you think people can do work well that they are not passionate about? Do you think that could ever be important? For example, is doing good janitorial work in hospitals important..? Do you suppose janitors are passionate about mopping?

I worked in a job where part of my duties entailed janitorial work. Mopping was my friggin jam.

 

[Broken_Erika]

debate? you mean something like Ben Shapiro uTTerlY RAVaGES st00pid FEMinist Orificies with his THR0BBing L4NCE of LOGIC (warning: Graphic)

I hate youtubt so goddamn much, *** off i don't want to watch any jordan peterson videos adwdawfagasrghwsrhsrh

Yeah! That's more like it!