Impossible argument

Well it seems like I've stumbled into a completely undefeatable resolution: http://www.debate.org/debates/Bearded-communists-tend-to-be-better-than-non-bearded-communists/1/ That Bearded Communists are "Better" than Unbearded ones.

I'll admit I was rather niave in taking this on. I knew of a few women communists who were pretty good and I figured there would have to be a few others I could dig up.
Well upon a LOT of research I have to say that I am now 100% convinced that this resolution is entirely true.
I am seriously planning on conceding this one. It's actually uncanny the number of terrible communist leaders who were clean shaven!

Oh well.

Any advice will be gladly accepted as will your condolences.

nzlockie: Correlation. Causation. This debate is about convincing voters there's a difference.

admin: No, the actual resolution is pretty clear. We're not arguing that it's the hair that makes one better than another.
To win I need to show that there are more non-bearded Communist leaders that are net beneficial for their people than there are non-bearded Communist leaders that are net harmful for their people. Then I need to show that my resulting figure is better than his one meaning that on balance, a non-bearded communist leader has a higher statistical chance of being net beneficial than a bearded one .

It would help my cause if I could bring up a bunch of bearded communist leaders who were terrible, the bearded equivs to Pol Pot, but given the number of clean shaven villians in communist history, I sincerely doubt that even that would help.

nzlockie: No. You're con. You don't need to show that. Your opponent needs to show the opposite. You can feel quite secure in critiquing the motion.

admin: Hmmm - Are you sure?
This is the actual resolution:

For the purpose of this debate better will be defined as doing 'more good' and 'less bad'.My burden of proof is to show that bearded communists (communist leaders with beards) did more good for their people than their non bearded counterparts and did less bad to their people/enemies than them as well.

I will argue that the percent of 'good' bearded communists is more than the percent of 'good' non bearded communists.
Since there are a HUGE number of communists, only national leaders of communist countries or leaders of communist guerillas and revolutionaries will be included in the debate

nzlockie: He has the BOP. Literally all you have to do is show his correlation of communists isn't causative with beards. BTW, I don't think Lenin and Ho Chi Mihn were bad people. Just had bad economic policies.

Blackflag: In his first round argument he says, "To clarify any confusion, I am NOT arguing that beards make communists better leaders. I am arguing that communists who happened to have beards tended to be better leaders."

I don't think Lenin or HoChi Min were bad people either. That's the problem. It helps my case if I can say they were!
I have a little dirt on Lenin, but in the end it hurt my case rather than helped it so I left it.

nzlockie: Yes I am sure. The burden of proof is on him. That means he needs to show bearded communists tend to be more good than non-bearded. His means of arguing that is with percentages. None of this implies that you HAVE to argue that opposite; you simply have to prevent him from proving that claim.

admin: hmm.
Ok, but correct me if I'm wrong but the best way for me to make that point would be to tear down his "good" submissions and defend his "bad" submissions, right?

Maybe even make some submissions of my own?

Or are you suggesting I point out that he has a responsibility to give us the specific ratios?

nzlockie: IMO the best way is to argue his claim is inherently absurd, because it implies correlation means causation. What he states he is arguing when he says "communists who happened to have beards tended to be better leaders" doesn't necessarily support the resolution.

Next best thing I can see would be making submissions of your own. This is good because it forces the debate on to your terms. Straight negative cases are weak when your opponent has lots of specific examples.

Next best would be to tear down his good and defend his bad.

Worst would be specific ratios. Certainly do-able as a strategy, but the resolution doesn't require him to do so, only to show a minimum ratio, for which most judges will accept some degree of induction.

There's other ways of handling it as well, but I think you're thinking along the right lines now.

admin: My problem with the first method you've stated is that it kind of goes against the spirit of the debate. We entered into it on the understanding that he was not arguing causation. That why he posted the comment I copied in the response to Ba'al above.
I get that it would be a technically correct line to take based on the specific resolution as he's stated it in round one - but I wonder if it wouldn't be a bit of an egg thing to do.

This is how I've ended up taking method two. My problem is I'm having a hard time pulling down the submissions he's made in any manner that is realistic given the guys I'm defending. And so far he hasn't even touched the surface of non-bearded communist leaders who are bad. And he still has a bunch of good guys in the bank!

I guess I'm too soft but I'll admit it's been enlightening to be confronted with exactly how many of the worst commies were clean shaven!

nzlockie: You want to see an "impossible" argument? Here's one I found difficult...

http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-at-Least-One-Person-on-the-Earth-Who-Believes-that-Parts-of-the-Bible-Are-Despicable/1/

(I still think I should have won that debate - a lot of people didn't really read the debate there, just looked at the topic)

nzlockie: He has the BOP. Literally all you have to do is show his correlation of communists isn't causative with beards. BTW, I don't think Lenin and Ho Chi Mihn were bad people. Just had bad economic policies.

Blackflag: Read it the first time bro!