Question on conflicting statements

How would you handle a situation in which the opposing position says something unbelievably false, but the judges might not be as educated on?

Blackflag: Spin a better narrative.

The worst mistake you can make is to try and source this. I learnt this watching the finals of the NZ Joynt Scroll 2011 - total mess for Victoria 1 as the super academic (but super smart) team were systematically destroyed by the younger, casual-er and more audience-appealing Victoria 2 (despite it being very obvious Victoria's second team were factually in the wrong).

admin: I find myself in this position in one of my debates, and it is frustrating. It is not a subject for debate, just blatantly false. Are you saying that you can say something factually incorrect as long as you can spin a better narrative? That lacks some integrity right there.

Blackflag: Debating in general lacks of lot of integrity. It's not meant for finding out who's more accurate, only who is more convincing. Being accurate might be more well suited to a competition like a quiz or something. I've always found a lot of debating is actually about deception and distraction.

admin: That is annoying to hear. It is really stupid that people care more about manipulation than truth seeking. I always liked the mindset that if you are debating another person and that person makes you change your mind, then you are the real winner. If there was a debate setting that supports that type of debate, that would be awesome.

deleted user: It's less of a setting and more of a stylistic thing. Most tournament-type debaters tend not debate their actual opinions.

On the other hand, you could very easily already incorporate this in the debate setup. Just put it in the field marked "additional rules".

deleted user: Almost everything we debate on here, we do not necessarily agree with.

deleted user: Debate is the art of persuading an audience you're correct against someone else who is trying to do the same. We do not judge based on who is correct, but who is more persuasive. That is why unlike DDO, we do not put that much emphasis into information and burden of proof. Methods such as narrative, word play, emphasis, and other literary tactics are used to win debates.

I often tell people debate.org is for arguing, and edeb8 is for debating. I love that statement, because it is very true. If you prefer to argue, well I must be honest, there are better sites I can direct you to. But if you want to debate, welcome home!

Blackflag: I thought a debate is just a formal argument? Do you have a more precise definition?

Blackflag: Actually no, I disagree respectfully. There are a variety of debate models none of which are inherently superior. While there is definitely a skill in arguing positions you do not accept personally, and I strongly believe serious debaters should learn to practice that no matter what their background, a more casual debater is still perfectly able to use edeb8 for just a casual argument concerning some random idea they may have had or something.

deleted user: A debate needs also be structured as well as formal. An unstructured but formal setting where arguments may happen might be, for example, a corporate meeting with no specific agenda. This also distinguishes a debate from a (formal) discussion. Most forms of debate are highly structured, but there are also formats that sit on the borderline between proper debate and discussion.

Actually no, I disagree respectfully.
What specifically are you respectfully disagreeing with me on?

Blackflag: That you cannot have a more informal "argument" (as you term it) on edeb8

admin: I never said that. There are just better sites for informal arguing in my personal opinion.