Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational Archive  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational Archive > The Rat Ring > Rat Ring Proposals

Notices

Rat Ring Proposals Propose formal debates/discussions and discuss terms.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-25-2014, 07:47 PM   #2352222  /  #26
AllRightMeow
Emoting Food
Mod: Politics and Current Affairs
 
AllRightMeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,509
AllRightMeow
Default

__________________
Picking apples for the kings and queens of things I've never seen
AllRightMeow is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 08:29 PM   #2352251  /  #27
Texas Lynn
Navy Mom and M-I-L
 
Texas Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Park Slope AKA Dyke Slope
Posts: 11,814
Texas Lynn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllRightMeow View Post
Just to verify, the "loser" of this debate will be banned forever. Correct ?
No.
__________________
"The brutal logic of neoliberal financial capitalism strikes at the heart of the socialist revolution." Matthew Yglesias
Texas Lynn is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 09:07 PM   #2352269  /  #28
Testycalibrated
incredibad
Age Of War Normal Champion
 
Testycalibrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: commensurate
Posts: 10,784
Testycalibrated
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingu View Post
No, he's not joking. He'll be a good moderator...
YAY!
I thought he was joking because I couldn't believe the debate would actually be moderated by such a fair and insightful person.
Maybe we have different concepts but I don't see a whole lot to be for or against as to who's the moderator because in such a case a moderator's more a tool-pusher than a diplomat. But we'll see. TR appears to be a well-run forum despite their elevation of certain scoundrels like one married to a musician to exhalted status.
So, what does this mean?

Also, I think you will want a word count but it's up to you. Forcing brevity makes for clearer thought.

Is there going to be any moderation for ad-homs?

The way moderation works is that you post but I have to approve the post before it appears. So, If all I have to do is keep double posts, random posts by others and edits by you out, then it's just button pushing on my end. If I need to check word count or edit for ad-homs (which involves pm-ing the party and asking them to remove the ad-hom, then approving the edit) then there's that added step. Otherwise, it's just a matter of approving the posts. I also suggest that ten rounds is a lot. You might want to go with 5. I like 5. 5 is a good number.

Anyway, those are the last bits of suggestions I have. All I need now is the resolution and I will start the thread.

Maybe I missed this, but, who's going first?
Testycalibrated is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 09:56 PM   #2352295  /  #29
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
A few more things on item #8: Word count mentions would be voided if #5 is dropped. Agreed no You Tube, etc.

Finally, Lion, think about this: do you really want that "no ad hominiem" in there? Because I can't see how you can do this, take that position without it. I will leave that up to you but if you want that rule included you will be held to it and I don't think you can do it. If you can I will give $100 to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis which I would consider a nonideological charity.

The poll is well-constructed and I would like to see it included in the activity. Thank you again.
I was talking about specific abusive ad hominem remarks directed at and about your debate opponent, not general informal ad hominem arguments. I understand your point about the sort of 'technical' ad hominem argument that might arise if, for example, ..."gay people are 'xyz' therefore..."

Using a persons own words against them can, technically, be classified as ad hominem. (In the bible, Jesus is seen occasionally using this device.)

But the abusive ad hom is;
My opponent is a bigot therefore....

Last edited by Lion IRC; 04-25-2014 at 09:58 PM.
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 10:37 PM   #2352309  /  #30
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

(5) Maximum statement length
1 x opening post - 1000 words?
5 x substantive posts - 2,000 words?
3 x interrogatory Q & A posts - 100 words?
1 x closing remarks summary - 1000 words?
... I find all to be excellent except #5 - it seems needless to place word limits and such. I expect to have not that much to say and to say it in few words, but I'd prefer options be open. As to interrogatories toward the other, I find that to be inappropriate, but hesitate to prohibit it or micromanage it. But if we delete that one section altogether I'm ready to get going.
The word count is there as a maximum, not a target or quota. It mainly serves as an "equal time" balance to prevent one side unfairly 'hogging' the available time. Feel free to use as few words as you like.

I agree with Testycalibrated that five substantive posts is about right considering there are only two contestants and something's wrong if we can't assert and rebut the main issues within a five post cycle. The opening and closing posts arent considered substantive inasmuch as they don't really engage in debating what your opponent posts.

The Q&A idea is helpful IMHO because, towards the end of a debate there can be certain unresolved themes or assertions which either side feels have not been addressed by their opponent. You might feel for example that during the course of the debate, a specific area of weakness in Lion IRC's case began to emerge and that he was being conspicuously evasive. The Q&A round gives you a chance to nail these down. I'm sure the peanut galley will provide you with suggestions.
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 10:43 PM   #2352310  /  #31
Testycalibrated
incredibad
Age Of War Normal Champion
 
Testycalibrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: commensurate
Posts: 10,784
Testycalibrated
Default

One rule I have used before is that you can end with, say, 3 questions that the other participant must at least address in their next post. That way you can keep the evasion to a minimum and also make it obvious when it's happening. The response can be brief but just for keeping focus it works well.

I think the best length is 5 posts though. It takes a lot of stamina to even go that long.

It also keeps the audience interest up. I tend to put forever threads on ignore because they clog postspy.
Testycalibrated is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 10:52 PM   #2352316  /  #32
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

Something a bit like this?
Q&A rounds
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 11:06 PM   #2352318  /  #33
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

...anyway, I'm off to scroll through Texas Lynn's post history to see if there's anything edifying.
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 11:11 PM   #2352320  /  #34
Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet
Senior Member
 
Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,700
Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC
I was talking about specific abusive ad hominem remarks directed at and about your debate opponent, not general informal ad hominem arguments. I understand your point about the sort of 'technical' ad hominem argument that might arise if, for example, ..."gay people are 'xyz' therefore..."
Technically, an ad hominem just occurs when you indicate a point is wrong because of some quality of the person making it. Like, Ted knows nothing about rocket science, so his proposed super rocket is rubbish. Which may be a good argument, but technically speaking, Ted's credentials have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of his proposal, or it doesn't follow from the fact that Ted is retarded about rocket science, that his super rocket would not function. Saying Ted sucks, and also his super rocket is dumb because xyz, is at most an implied ad hominem, if we take saying Ted sucks to imply he is wrong because of it (about his claim, not for sucking). Colloquially, though, insults do tend to be called ad hominems, and more straightforward and actual ad hominems seem to be rarely called out as such.

I think what you guys are looking for is a civil debate, but I'll take my pedantic hat off in any case.

Last edited by Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet; 04-25-2014 at 11:45 PM.
Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 11:28 PM   #2352322  /  #35
osmanthus
Bent member
 
osmanthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 7,101
osmanthus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
You might feel for example that during the course of the debate, a specific area of weakness in Lion IRC's case began to emerge and that he was being conspicuously evasive.
Oh, surely not. Never.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cultsmasher View Post
Next, I don't know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. But whatever it is, it hasn't stopped me from sucessfully supporting my points of view.
osmanthus is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 11:33 PM   #2352325  /  #36
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60,846
Pingu
Default

Well, the "traditional" format (not sure what tradition we are using though) is that you both get to post each round simultaneously then respond to each other in the next. So the practicality would be that Testy would open the thread formally, then you each post your opening statements in it, and when they are both in (or when the time limit expires if only one gets in on time), he will release them from moderation, rinse and repeat.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 04-25-2014, 11:51 PM   #2352332  /  #37
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,430
buttershug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllRightMeow View Post
Just to verify, the "loser" of this debate will be banned forever. Correct ?
No.
Ok, how about the loser has to post nude for a month?
__________________
Quote:
Only the madman is absolutely sure.

Robert Anton Wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YQ24i1wP0
buttershug is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 02:01 AM   #2352357  /  #38
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,303
Old Dan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllRightMeow View Post
yup
Old Dan is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 02:55 AM   #2352373  /  #39
Texas Lynn
Navy Mom and M-I-L
 
Texas Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Park Slope AKA Dyke Slope
Posts: 11,814
Texas Lynn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Testycalibrated View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingu View Post
No, he's not joking. He'll be a good moderator...
YAY!
I thought he was joking because I couldn't believe the debate would actually be moderated by such a fair and insightful person.
Maybe we have different concepts but I don't see a whole lot to be for or against as to who's the moderator because in such a case a moderator's more a tool-pusher than a diplomat. But we'll see. TR appears to be a well-run forum despite their elevation of certain scoundrels like one married to a musician to exhalted status.
So, what does this mean?

Also, I think you will want a word count but it's up to you. Forcing brevity makes for clearer thought.

Is there going to be any moderation for ad-homs?

The way moderation works is that you post but I have to approve the post before it appears. So, If all I have to do is keep double posts, random posts by others and edits by you out, then it's just button pushing on my end. If I need to check word count or edit for ad-homs (which involves pm-ing the party and asking them to remove the ad-hom, then approving the edit) then there's that added step. Otherwise, it's just a matter of approving the posts. I also suggest that ten rounds is a lot. You might want to go with 5. I like 5. 5 is a good number.

Anyway, those are the last bits of suggestions I have. All I need now is the resolution and I will start the thread.

Maybe I missed this, but, who's going first?
That sounds OK.

I believe the two of us are agreed I will be first.

The proposition is "Same sex marriage should be legal in all jurisdictions with the inherent benefits regarding same extended in full."
__________________
"The brutal logic of neoliberal financial capitalism strikes at the heart of the socialist revolution." Matthew Yglesias
Texas Lynn is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 02:57 AM   #2352374  /  #40
Texas Lynn
Navy Mom and M-I-L
 
Texas Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Park Slope AKA Dyke Slope
Posts: 11,814
Texas Lynn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
A few more things on item #8: Word count mentions would be voided if #5 is dropped. Agreed no You Tube, etc.

Finally, Lion, think about this: do you really want that "no ad hominiem" in there? Because I can't see how you can do this, take that position without it. I will leave that up to you but if you want that rule included you will be held to it and I don't think you can do it. If you can I will give $100 to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis which I would consider a nonideological charity.

The poll is well-constructed and I would like to see it included in the activity. Thank you again.
I was talking about specific abusive ad hominem remarks directed at and about your debate opponent, not general informal ad hominem arguments. I understand your point about the sort of 'technical' ad hominem argument that might arise if, for example, ..."gay people are 'xyz' therefore..."

Using a persons own words against them can, technically, be classified as ad hominem. (In the bible, Jesus is seen occasionally using this device.)

But the abusive ad hom is;
My opponent is a bigot therefore....
OK, but group slurs against groups with which the opponent is a member would count as ad homiems then.
__________________
"The brutal logic of neoliberal financial capitalism strikes at the heart of the socialist revolution." Matthew Yglesias
Texas Lynn is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 02:59 AM   #2352376  /  #41
Texas Lynn
Navy Mom and M-I-L
 
Texas Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Park Slope AKA Dyke Slope
Posts: 11,814
Texas Lynn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

(5) Maximum statement length
1 x opening post - 1000 words?
5 x substantive posts - 2,000 words?
3 x interrogatory Q & A posts - 100 words?
1 x closing remarks summary - 1000 words?
... I find all to be excellent except #5 - it seems needless to place word limits and such. I expect to have not that much to say and to say it in few words, but I'd prefer options be open. As to interrogatories toward the other, I find that to be inappropriate, but hesitate to prohibit it or micromanage it. But if we delete that one section altogether I'm ready to get going.
The word count is there as a maximum, not a target or quota. It mainly serves as an "equal time" balance to prevent one side unfairly 'hogging' the available time. Feel free to use as few words as you like.

I agree with Testycalibrated that five substantive posts is about right considering there are only two contestants and something's wrong if we can't assert and rebut the main issues within a five post cycle. The opening and closing posts arent considered substantive inasmuch as they don't really engage in debating what your opponent posts.

The Q&A idea is helpful IMHO because, towards the end of a debate there can be certain unresolved themes or assertions which either side feels have not been addressed by their opponent. You might feel for example that during the course of the debate, a specific area of weakness in Lion IRC's case began to emerge and that he was being conspicuously evasive. The Q&A round gives you a chance to nail these down. I'm sure the peanut galley will provide you with suggestions.
OK, I agree, but one thing the moderator could do is state specifically when these are due.
__________________
"The brutal logic of neoliberal financial capitalism strikes at the heart of the socialist revolution." Matthew Yglesias
Texas Lynn is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 03:05 AM   #2352379  /  #42
Texas Lynn
Navy Mom and M-I-L
 
Texas Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Park Slope AKA Dyke Slope
Posts: 11,814
Texas Lynn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
...anyway, I'm off to scroll through Texas Lynn's post history to see if there's anything edifying.
I agree that sort of forum banter would not be appropriate here.
__________________
"The brutal logic of neoliberal financial capitalism strikes at the heart of the socialist revolution." Matthew Yglesias
Texas Lynn is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 03:06 AM   #2352382  /  #43
Texas Lynn
Navy Mom and M-I-L
 
Texas Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Park Slope AKA Dyke Slope
Posts: 11,814
Texas Lynn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllRightMeow View Post
Just to verify, the "loser" of this debate will be banned forever. Correct ?
No.
Ok, how about the loser has to post nude for a month?
No
__________________
"The brutal logic of neoliberal financial capitalism strikes at the heart of the socialist revolution." Matthew Yglesias
Texas Lynn is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 03:07 AM   #2352383  /  #44
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,430
buttershug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testycalibrated View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingu View Post
No, he's not joking. He'll be a good moderator...
YAY!
I thought he was joking because I couldn't believe the debate would actually be moderated by such a fair and insightful person.
Maybe we have different concepts but I don't see a whole lot to be for or against as to who's the moderator because in such a case a moderator's more a tool-pusher than a diplomat. But we'll see. TR appears to be a well-run forum despite their elevation of certain scoundrels like one married to a musician to exhalted status.
So, what does this mean?

Also, I think you will want a word count but it's up to you. Forcing brevity makes for clearer thought.

Is there going to be any moderation for ad-homs?

The way moderation works is that you post but I have to approve the post before it appears. So, If all I have to do is keep double posts, random posts by others and edits by you out, then it's just button pushing on my end. If I need to check word count or edit for ad-homs (which involves pm-ing the party and asking them to remove the ad-hom, then approving the edit) then there's that added step. Otherwise, it's just a matter of approving the posts. I also suggest that ten rounds is a lot. You might want to go with 5. I like 5. 5 is a good number.

Anyway, those are the last bits of suggestions I have. All I need now is the resolution and I will start the thread.

Maybe I missed this, but, who's going first?
That sounds OK.

I believe the two of us are agreed I will be first.

The proposition is "Same sex marriage should be legal in all jurisdictions with the inherent benefits regarding same extended in full."
You do realize that the word "should" is a very weak link in that statement, right?
__________________
Quote:
Only the madman is absolutely sure.

Robert Anton Wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YQ24i1wP0
buttershug is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 03:25 AM   #2352392  /  #45
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingu View Post
Well, the "traditional" format (not sure what tradition we are using though) is that you both get to post each round simultaneously then respond to each other in the next. So the practicality would be that Testy would open the thread formally, then you each post your opening statements in it, and when they are both in (or when the time limit expires if only one gets in on time), he will release them from moderation, rinse and repeat.
So both sides are simultaneously responding to what?
Doesn't that lead to redundant comments?

Suppose I post a flawed argument in round 3.
My opponent won't see that and refute it until AFTER they have submitted their response to my round 2 post.
And I won't know my round 3 argument has been refuted until AFTER I have already submitted my round 4 post which is perhaps now redundant because it continues to build on the, (as yet), unrefuted previous argument.
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 06:37 AM   #2352415  /  #46
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

IOW - I think reciprocating posts in sequence allows for a better flow of the contest.


1. Texas Lynn posts opening remarks. (General overview of topic, definitions and broad summary of affirmative position)

2. Lion IRC posts opening remarks. (Same as Texas Lynn. No substantive rebuttal or criticism of previous post.)

3. Texas Lynn posts first substantive post. Launches primary arguments in support affirmative case. Possible preemptive arguments/rebuttals of hypothetical case for the negative but normal practice would be to await my actual arguments rather than rebutting a strawman.

4. The audience (including me) views the post content.

5. Lion IRC posts in rebuttal and perhaps begins offering new lines of argument for the negative case.

The audience (including Texas Lynn) views the post content.

6. Texas Lynn responds to (or ignores) opponent's post according to whatever debate strategy best suits the affirmative case. Counter-argument. Rebuttal. Refutation. New lines of argument. etc

This is the format I understood Texas Lynn was expecting when the debate challenge was made.
I post. She posts. I post. She posts. And so forth.
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 09:05 AM   #2352421  /  #47
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60,846
Pingu
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post

I believe the two of us are agreed I will be first.
Neither of you has to go first; that's the beauty of this format.

You both make your opening case, and when you've both submitted them, Testy will release them simultaneously.

Then you both respond to the other's opening case, and your rebuttals are again posted simultaneously.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 09:08 AM   #2352423  /  #48
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60,846
Pingu
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingu View Post
Well, the "traditional" format (not sure what tradition we are using though) is that you both get to post each round simultaneously then respond to each other in the next. So the practicality would be that Testy would open the thread formally, then you each post your opening statements in it, and when they are both in (or when the time limit expires if only one gets in on time), he will release them from moderation, rinse and repeat.
So both sides are simultaneously responding to what?
Doesn't that lead to redundant comments?

Suppose I post a flawed argument in round 3.
My opponent won't see that and refute it until AFTER they have submitted their response to my round 2 post.
Your flaw will be in your rebuttal to your opponent's round 2 post.

She can deal with it in her rebuttal to Round 3.

Quote:
And I won't know my round 3 argument has been refuted until AFTER I have already submitted my round 4 post which is perhaps now redundant because it continues to build on the, (as yet), unrefuted previous argument.
Well, you can obviously do it whatever way you wish. If you want to go in sequence I could set up a different forum where the posts don't go into moderation, and you can just post your rebuttals as soon as they are ready. Or put up with waiting for Testy anyway.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 09:18 AM   #2352424  /  #49
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60,846
Pingu
Default

Here's how simultaneous release would work for your proposed debate:

Round 1:
Texas Lynn posts opening remarks. (General overview of topic, definitions and broad summary of affirmative position)

Lion IRC posts opening remarks. (Same as Texas Lynn. No substantive rebuttal or criticism of previous post.
The above are released simultaneously.

Then Round 2:

Texas Lynn posts first substantive post. Launches primary arguments in support affirmative case. Possible preemptive arguments/rebuttals of hypothetical case for the negative but normal practice would be to await Lion's actual arguments rather than rebutting a strawman.

Lion IRC posts his/her substantive post. Launches primary arguments in support negative case. Possible preemptive arguments/rebuttals of hypothetical case for the affirmative but normal practice would be to await Lynn's actual arguments rather than rebutting a strawman.

Then Round 3:
Lion IRC posts in rebuttal of Lynn's case for the affirmative and perhaps begins offering new lines of argument for the negative case.

Lynn posts in rebuttal of Lion's case for the negative and perhaps begins offering new lines of argument for the affirmative case.
Then Round 4:

Lion posts counter-rebuttal to Lynn's rebuttal of his/her rebuttal of Lion's case.

Lynn posts counter-rebuttal to Lion's rebuttal of her rebuttal of Lion's case.
etc.

That way Lion is forced to make an actual case for the negative, rather than simply reponding to Lynn's affirmative

Meanwhile we in the Peanut Gallery point and laugh.

But it's up to you guys.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 04-26-2014, 07:50 PM   #2352709  /  #50
Lion IRC
Senior Member
 
Lion IRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Lion IRC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Lynn View Post
...group slurs against groups with which the opponent is a member would count as ad hominems then.
Yep. They would. (And they are.)

I can assure you I will not be using any deliberate ad hom slurs. (Or expletives.) And I assume that neither will you.

Of course the main difficulty here is what formally constitutes a 'slur'.
"Homophobe"? "Bigot"? "Sexist"? "Promiscuous"? "Immoral"? "Republican"? Abomination? Dysfunctional?

But there is another problem in defining who specifically does belong to "the group". LGBTQI is comprised of a wide spectrum of people with varying degrees of sensitivity to the use of specific words. And we are going to be putting this minority "group" under the magnifying glass to discuss what social pathologies might ensue in family law if traditional (democratic majority) definitions of marriage are changed to include everyone in that group who wants to get 'married'.

So I can see your point about the difficulty for a Moderator in playing "spot the ad hom".

I don't know where we go with that since I'm not going to constrain myself for fear that "gay people" might accuse many/all of my statements against SSM of being homophobic or slurs - even though I contend they are not. It kind of stifles the SSM debate if the template for discussion forces the negative case to refrain from saying anything considered 'negative'. (I know that's how spin doctors frame the public debate - bigots and homophobes and haters vs kind, tolerant, open-minded, freedom lovers who just want equality for everyone.)

What do you want to do about the posting sequence? Simultaneous or reciprocating?
If simultaneous, we both have to post every 72 hours rather than taking turns, theoretically halving the duration of the debate from 9-10 weeks down to 4-5 weeks.
I personally prefer staggered posts. Your post goes up. Then I have 72 hours to reply. Then you have 72 hours. Then me. etc.
If I were in the audience reading the flow of the debate in the thread thats how the posts will appear. First you, then me, then you, then....
If both our posts go up at the same time maybe there needs to be one thread for the affirmative posts and another parallel thread for the negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingu View Post
...That way Lion is forced to make an actual case for the negative, rather than simply reponding to Lynn's affirmative
So much for the burden of proof. I dont notice too many atheists lining up to make the negative case in the God debate.

The topic is framed in such a way that the affirmative bears a heavier persuasive burden than the negative. (Assuming that is what they want to do - to persuade)

I expect the bulk of my case will be rebutting my opponents posts since the topic consists of a proposition that the status quo ought to change. That proposition naturally requires affirmative supporting arguments. The actual debate is going to proceed only once we see what those arguments for change look like.

Last edited by Lion IRC; 04-26-2014 at 08:10 PM. Reason: Avoid page break
Lion IRC is offline   topbottom
 

  TalkRational Archive > The Rat Ring > Rat Ring Proposals

Tags
bsapist

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2018, TalkRational.org