Formal Debate Discussion Thread

[hobbsyoyo]

Bump for interest. I thought there would be more discussion of the debate than this given the interest there was in the formal debate idea.

 

[GoodGame]

For me a big point not touched on is what would be the impact of the associated taxes on present or future private space ventures if we continue to raise NASA spending? It's not unreasonable to suggest the private space endeavors will be competed with my the government, and that will place a high bar on private space ventures. I think NASA is relinquishing to private space carriers, or close to doing so. That might be a good reason focus on only specific types of missions such as pure science or highly speculative missions that venture capitalists might not want to endorse.

And after a little reading, I find that NASA's budget (not cited by either debater) is about $16 billion annual on average, and about $0.2 Trillion total from 2000 to 2012. The current national deficit is about 80 times that. Numerically, it might seem that a trivial amount of the defense budget could be spliced into NASA under a common project (e.g. automated guidance, flight, stress adaption, medicine) to effect a boost to the NASA budget and technological/science gains from that could attempt to be re-used in NASA project. That's a gamble, but I have trouble thinking there is absolutely zero overlap between NASA project goals and DOD goals. Creative project management like that could avoid redundancy in government spending and help both agencies simultaneously.

 

[BvBPL]

I looked at the first post with the rules. My eyes glazed over and I decided it wasn't worth my time to either figure out the rules, bother reading debate, or have any interest in participating in a similar debate. Those rules are absurdly arcane.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hooray!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We're on the final claim folks. We are going to wrap this thing up tomorrow. Any comments on the set of exchanges today?

 

[GoodGame]

I looked at the first post with the rules. My eyes glazed over and I decided it wasn't worth my time to either figure out the rules, bother reading debate, or have any interest in participating in a similar debate. Those rules are absurdly arcane.

It's meant to be formal.

 

[BvBPL]

I understand that, but does that necessarily mean it needs to be so complicated that it needs a glossary? It seems too formal, and some of the rules seem arbitrary and provide no benefit.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I redacted my fact check. I thought about it and I think it's against the rukes.

 

[Earthling]

Bump for interest. I thought there would be more discussion of the debate than this given the interest there was in the formal debate idea.

I intend to comment more but haven't caught up.

As for interest in the format as a whole, I'm not so sure I had the same expectations of who would actually follow (or participate in) debates. Let me say this debate has done well so far from what I expected on a participation standpoint, credit to the debators.

 

[JohannaK]

The dabate has been great so far, but the format is quite... it doesn't cut it. The debate, as formal as it may be, it feels incomplete.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd just like to take time to address a few points on the format. Before any goes off and calls me a format-nazi, I'd just like to say I support any suggestions to make the format better. I'd just like to give some perspective from someone who has gone through the process and point out what I think works, doesn't work, and address some feedback.

I also have comments I'd like to make concerning posts about the substance of the debate, but I'll save those until after the poll is closed because it wouldn't be right of me to turn this isn't a debate about the debate and try and pursuade posters until after a winner is determined.

Oh and a big thank you for everyone who has taken the time to read the debate thread and to those who went the extra step and posted here.

I understand that, but does that necessarily mean it needs to be so complicated that it needs a glossary? It seems too formal, and some of the rules seem arbitrary and provide no benefit.

Well, I understand that if you hadn't followed the previous rules discussion thread, that some of the rules do seem rather arbitrary. Rest assured, Warpus and I took the suggestions from that thread and went in depth to analyze what a formal debate should be like on line and how to make a format and rules that facilitate it.

A few key points:
-We chose to eliminate quotes from sources and each other. This was to keep the already tl;dr posts more manageable by eliminating quotes of each other. Those aren't necessary as there are only two posters, and we make it clear which points we are addressing. Quotes from internet sources were eliminated to cut down on clutter and to keep the debate from devolving into a quote war. With google, it's easy to find articles that justify your position and it's equally easy to interpret articles in different ways. This happens already in all other threads, so we thought it would be best to leave out that distraction.

-We limited the rebuttals to just one point. You can make as many points as you want to refute that point, but you can't refute more than one (with a special exception). This was done for a few reasons. Namely, it forces a debater to put a lot of thought into each point to make them as complete and unassailable as possible --> debaters faced with a really good point will often choose to assail the lower hanging fruit (example: Warpus went after the nuclear asteroid strike point I made) and that can either help or hurt them depending on how well they refute the point.

It also keeps the debate moving forward, as you can't nit-pick every last point that is made. While it seems counterintuitive to an online forum, it more accurately reflects real world debates (where time forces a debater to pick and choose what to refute) and it really keeps distracting or weak arguments from taking excessive amounts of threadspace.

I would really like to emphasize how much this has helped the two of us in this particular debate. We really underestimated how much time it would take to get through it, and without this rule we wouldn't be finishing for another week or two. It takes way more time to do this right than I think many people anticipated, and Warpus and I are pretty happy with this rule.

Plus, it gives the peanut gallery more to post about as they can respond here to any points that weren't refuted. That they haven't done that much is kind of troubling, but eh, it's the first time. I guess people weren't thrilled with the subject.

I would like to say that the no-quotes rule does warrant a rethink. It's hard for the both of us to not quote something to prove a factual point. That we can't do so makes it even harder to not waste a rebuttal posts going after a factual error. At the same time, I don't think quote wars would be any better and would be quite distracting and actually narrow the debate down at points to arbitrary fights over articles.

I also think something needs to be done about having a moderater. It just isn't practical when the debates are probably going to go on at all times for a few days (having a set beginning time for the first few days really threw a wrench in the whole process, it's best to leave it open to account for time differences and busy schedules). And without a moderator, the no - quotes rule becomes even harder to enforce as there is no one to make calls on what is or isn't allowed, or if a posters is arguing in bad faith or whatever. Warpus and I have been very congenial and have worked out differences in private. You can't really expect that all the time however.

I'm really hoping to hear some solid suggestions on how to deal with this, and how the format could improve going forward. Please, by all means point out all the problems you've seen thus far.

The dabate has been great so far, but the format is quite... it doesn't cut it. The debate, as formal as it may be, it feels incomplete.

Eh, thanks for the feedback. Do you mind being a bit more specific? We are genuinely interested in making the process and format better and I promise I'm not going to stick with a 'my format is #1! shut up' argument. Please, help us improve it by pointing out flaws and suggested changes.

I intend to comment more but haven't caught up.

As for interest in the format as a whole, I'm not so sure I had the same expectations of who would actually follow (or participate in) debates. Let me say this debate has done well so far from what I expected on a participation standpoint, credit to the debators.

Thank you! This thread and the actual debate thread have gotten a lot of page views/number of posts, and that's exciting. I'd just like to see more commentary on the debate itself.

So I ask, what is it that is keeping all the posters who read the debate from commenting on it? How do we draw you in to this discussion?

It's a bit distorting when the major points of discussion about the substance of the debate have only come from 4-5 posters. It's hard to paint an accurate picture of who's 'winning' and also leads to a distorted perception that one side or the other is 'winning' based on a very small sampling of posters. And for the record, I'd feel the same if those few comments painted me as the winner instead of the loser.

Anyways, thanks again to everyone who has played a part in all of this and for those who have waded through my majorly tl;dr posts, including this one.

 

[warpus]

-We limited the rebuttals to just one point. You can make as many points as you want to refute that point, but you can't refute more than one (with a special exception). This was done for a few reasons. Namely, it forces a debater to put a lot of thought into each point to make them as complete and unassailable as possible --> debaters faced with a really good point will often choose to assail the lower hanging fruit (example: Warpus went after the nuclear asteroid strike point I made) and that can either help or hurt them depending on how well they refute the point.

It also keeps the debate moving forward, as you can't nit-pick every last point that is made. While it seems counterintuitive to an online forum, it more accurately reflects real world debates (where time forces a debater to pick and choose what to refute) and it really keeps distracting or weak arguments from taking excessive amounts of threadspace.

Here's my take on it:

The peanut gallery is the ultimate arbiter of the debate, right? Forcing a debater to choose which of his opponents points to address adds a bit of extra strategy in that you can either choose to tackle a weak point to impress the peanut gallery and score "easy" points in that manner.. or tackle something a bit more solid, hoping that the peanut gallery will see the weak points the same way you do. By not addressing a point the peanut gallery might take it as a sign that you concede that particular point.. or they might overlook it. It all depends on what sort of people are in the peanut gallery.

 

[downtown]

I do think that moving forward we may try to simply things a little bit.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I do think that moving forward we may try to simply things a little bit.

Thoughts, specifics? I'm just curious.

Here's my take on it:

The peanut gallery is the ultimate arbiter of the debate, right? Forcing a debater to choose which of his opponents points to address adds a bit of extra strategy in that you can either choose to tackle a weak point to impress the peanut gallery and score "easy" points in that manner.. or tackle something a bit more solid, hoping that the peanut gallery will see the weak points the same way you do. By not addressing a point the peanut gallery might take it as a sign that you concede that particular point.. or they might overlook it. It all depends on what sort of people are in the peanut gallery.

Exactly. I've taken a strategic approach to this as well. I too, at times, have gone for low hanging fruit. Other times, I went for what I saw to be the hardest points to refute. It all depends on the impact I want to have on the peanut gallery. For instance, some points I feel confident I can thorougly trash by pointing out arguments that may be non-obvious. I go for those.

Other times, I feel some arguments have basic, easy-to-spot flaws that I think the Peanut Gallery will pick up on without my intervention. In these cases, I go for the harder arguments that take more skill to refute to show my skills and because if the other arguments are bad enough, it's essentially a two-fer. I get to knock down a point, and I can count on the Peanut Gallery two mentally knock down the other point(s) themselves. Of course, this can easily backfire. >_< I also didn't consider that the Peanut gallery would be so quiet overall, so it's hard to judge if the strategy ever paid off.

 

[JohannaK]

Well, somebody asked if we could debate or not, in order not to contaminate or influence the debate.

I was especially disappointed by the debate when warpus took the argument to nukes and asteroids, and ignoring the other points, and for the topic to be imposed until the round was over. That's why I find that the format isn't entirely good, because there is no way to redrive the argument on the true topic. Perhaps a more active moderator?
Also, I think that debaters should be allowed to post links or references that support their points, but for the peanut gallery to evaluate its ambiguity and validity, and the debaters shouldn't be allowed to argue over that reference.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, somebody asked if we could debate or not, in order not to contaminate or influence the debate.

Well, the rules don't say it's disallowed, and it only came up here from one poster, so I think it's ok.

I was especially disappointed by the debate when warpus took the argument to nukes and asteroids, and ignoring the other points, and for the topic to be imposed until the round was over. That's why I find that the format isn't entirely good, because there is no way to redrive the argument on the true topic.

Well, I have done the same. But what this does is leave it up to you to see whether the rebuttals given did a good enough job of refuting the main point or not. That's a benefit, IMO, to you, as it makes it easier to judge who won based on where debaters took the claim. Otherwise, you'd have to wade through even longer posts to come to a conclusion who came out on top. And I don't think anyone who's going to debate is going to want to have to counter every point - it's already extremely tedious and time consuming. However, if someone thinks they're up for it, by all means go for it.

Perhaps a more active moderator?

That would solve a lot of problems but it's going to be hard to pull off as these things go for a while and it's a big time commitment.

Also, I think that debaters should be allowed to post links or references that support their points, but for the peanut gallery to evaluate its ambiguity and validity, and the debaters shouldn't be allowed to argue over that reference.

That's a really good suggestion. At the same time though, wouldn't not allowing debaters to haggle over the references just lead to the spamming of references that support or refute another refence? And I am all for the peanut gallery doing evaluation, but they don't currently seem interested in it.

 

[warpus]

I initially ignored the nuclear point, but hobbs brought it up again so I felt forced to rebuke it.

Am I allowed to say that here?

 

[JohannaK]

Yes, the first feeling I got from the nuke issue was that hobbs was bringing it on and on until warpus took it and definitely drew the debate there.

And, well, limit it to one link per point or something.
And on the other thing, the coming back on the real issue, perhaps give the moderator a 1-time-per-round power to establish the next point to discuss, or something in that fashion.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes, the first feeling I got from the nuke issue was that hobbs was bringing it on and on until warpus took it and definitely drew the debate there.

And, well, limit it to one link per point or something.
And on the other thing, the coming back on the real issue, perhaps give the moderator a 1-time-per-round power to establish the next point to discuss, or something in that fashion.

Hmmm....or maybe giving the moderater the responsibility to set the points to debate over like irl debates. However, that is entirely dependent on an active, committed moderater who will see it through. That's going to be hard to come by.

I initially ignored the nuclear point, but hobbs brought it up again so I felt forced to rebuke it.

Am I allowed to say that here?

Psst, at this point I'm almost past caring if we can talk about it, this point is over in any case. I mean, we probably shouldn't, and I'm not going to talk about peanut gallery points, but what the hell.

You didn't have to go for the nuke point, it was really a very minor point the first time I made it and was only there as an example of currently existing technology that could be used to wack and asteroid the second time, along with other technologies. I thought it was kind of funny you singled it out for attack though as it left all the other points stand. Can't say I wasn't happy I threw it out there, you went for the low hanging fruit.

And as I've already said, I've done the same multiple times.

 

[JohannaK]

To be honest, i find that move strategically correct. I only remember that it was all conjecturing about nukes and asteroids, I don't even know which the original claims were.