EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

When to Source

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 10 2014 11:51 AM
My suggestion is to put conduct violations on a ladder of 3, for a maximum of 3 violations, while keeping debate argument's ladder on the scale of 10.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Oct 10 2014 11:56 AM
whiteflame: Wait whiteflame, using your China example, I get that the first instance scores lower than the second one. The guy has done nothing to explain WHY he is making these assertions.

However in your second example, he's added TWO things to his initial assertion; reasoning and third party support.
I think what Csareo is saying is that what if he had only added the reasoning, without the support. Does his reasoning fail to score because it wasn't supported, despite the fact that it went uncontested?
If it's supported, it becomes a stronger argument, and harder for the opposition to tear down but I'm not sure it should score more points?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 10 2014 12:19 PM
nzlockie: Another example would be in the philosophy debate I'm doing with Phantom. If I were to use reasoning to reach the conclusion that "sensory experience is the only way to obtain knowledge", then why would I score extra points over my opponent simply for sourcing a testimony from John Locke.

Sources shouldn't be factored as a score. They're a means to an end. Sourcing just makes your arguments harder for your opponent to knock down. See the OPIC debate I did with Admin. He made a claim that OPIC doesn't create a trade wealth in other countries, despite my source that showed there is a trade surplus in nations who have recieved OPIC deals. I was able to refer to that in CX, which will help my arguments in the next round.

Judges really aren't expected to read sources. We believe what you say until the other guy says its wrong. If you have a source, then we're more likely to believe that than the other guy's word.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 10 2014 12:20 PM
Blackflag: * all the spelling errors
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 10 2014 12:22 PM
Alternatively, sources can be handy tools for defeating another argument.
The problem is that the impact sources had on the argument is being judged, over the impact the arguments alone had on the debate.
An affirmed argument isn't more affirmed because of a source, nor can every argument be proven or bolstered with a source.
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Oct 10 2014 12:52 PM
Blackflag: BoP stands for burden of proof. Proof requires more than just assertion, and in the case of debate, it often requires actual proof, as in sources. You may be saying the same thing, but by adding a source, you're providing support for your argument, and thus better meeting your burden of proof.

A debater that seeks to affirm a resolution will present affirming arguments. However, the only reason anyone can accept those arguments is that there is substantial logic backing those arguments. In order to get that logic, especially if we're talking about real world happenings, some points require more than just an assertion that they're true - they require actual support.

...I'm not quite sure I understand where you're going with your example, so I'm going to use a real world example. The topic is that the U.S. should send up a new satellite that detects earthquakes. Con argues that sending up said satellite is going to infuriate China, which wants to control space. They will, thus, nuke the U.S. When I see that argument, I give it a 5 on impact, and a 0 on likelihood. It doesn't have any support, it's just unwarranted assertions. If Con tells me a story, explaining why China wants to control space, how they will likely respond to a satellite being shot into orbit, and how ready they are to go to blows with the U.S., they would get a bump to 2 or 3 on likelihood without response. If Con sources those arguments, providing quotes from Chinese generals stating that they are readying nuclear weapons for just such an occasion, that they have threatened to nuke Russia for doing the same thing, and would engage in that behavior here, it gets bumped to a 4 or 5. That's because they've just increased the likelihood by giving me the full basis of support for your arguments.

What you appear to be saying is that I should weigh the first argument I listed as exactly the same as the last one in terms of potency within the debate. They are an integral part of whether someone's argument was effective. I'm not sure why they have to be separate.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Oct 10 2014 12:53 PM
whiteflame: ^ this repeating post bug needs to be fixed
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Oct 10 2014 12:55 PM
Blackflag: Yeah... It's annoying. Anyway, it appears we have a difference of opinion on this subject. If you'd like, we can proceed with a debate on it, just formulate a topic and we can discuss it.
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Oct 10 2014 12:57 PM
nzlockie: That doesn't appear to be his point, at least not so far as I can tell. I can better understand that opinion, but that's not what I'm getting out of this discussion. I also disagree with that to some extent.
whiteflame
By whiteflame | Oct 10 2014 1:02 PM
Blackflag: I think you're misconstruing my argument. In a debate like that, logic is the main way you can use for explaining your argument, as any source you would use would just be an authority using logic in your place. I agree that simply using testimony from Locke doesn't inherently make a person's argument better. My point is that, in debates about policy where the discussion is regarding actual things that are occurring in the world, it is important to show that some of those things are actually happening or are likely to happen, based on testimony beyond your own.
Page: 12Most Recent