You bunch of complacent armchair brainlets. You know precisely dick about formal debate. And I'm not just talking about user's blogpost.
First, let's talk about assumptions. Science is a discipline that perpetuates itself by being grounded on principles of uncertainty. For example, we used to think (by observing through empirical, albeit primitive, methods) that the earth was flat. But once we had access to more accurate means of observation, we came to accept that we were incorrect. By this humility we are able to expand and adjust the information we accept (for this particular moment) as correct.
So, science operates on *reasonable assumptions.
In the same way, debate is grounded on what is established as factual. Either party is expected to matterload (expand general knowledge to so they can call out bullshit; also there is a prep time for debaters once a motion--the statement to be debated about--is issued). So, there is a general understanding of what is correct, and this is the set of assumptions the discussion will operate with. Of course, not many motions will be so topical. Debaters can argue with knowledge that is a priori (corollaries to premises, by the rules of logic).
And appointed adjudicators are often debaters themselves. Else, how are they supposed to judge what they are not familiar with?
Now if the motion is a problem, you should know that there are many ways to solve a problem. An analogy: say you are solving an equation and someone else is saying their solution is better because it is more efficient (and that yours is brutish and bulky).
Same with debate, except the scope is larger. Additionally, logical fallacies (whether formal--flawed when reduced to logic statements--or nonformal, such as ad hominem or ad misericordia) will also be taken into consideration when assessing either side.
So quit shilling dumb assumptions about debate.
Samuel Perry
Nice blog post, faggot. Have you thought about getting a WordPress?
Parker Davis
How buttmad would you be if I told you I already do?
Ethan Carter
Now try getting up before a crowd and getting them to digest your wall of text while your opponent keeps cutting you off.
Jacob Gonzalez
Kek. I was talking about formal debate a. You are not supposed to be interrupted unless you allow a POI (point of information) from an opponent.
Hudson Brooks
>cutting off back to the fucking cage with you
Sebastian Edwards
>if everyone debates in my way, this is how it should be done
In a real debate, you can't count on your opponent being civil. He's trying to convince the audience (not you) that he's right, and the only real rules are what the audience will tolerate. If he can fit a quip into your lengthy monologue, he will and the audience most likely won't give a shit that he spoke during your time. If he can change the topic to dodge a question or get a rouse out of the crowd, he will as long as he plays to the audience's sensibilities.
Debate is not about who's actually right, and it never was. I'm not logic is totally useless, but if you're standing up there laying out formal propositions and listing out every logical fallacy your opponent is committing like an autist, no one will take you seriously and you'll get rekt by your more charismatic opponent like OP did.
Evan Miller
jesus, why are they all so ugly and fat? aren't all blacks poor? how come they are so fat without money to buy shit to eat?
Jaxson Kelly
By "real", you mean not an academic setting? Then of fucking course what I said doesn't apply. Again, I stress, I was talking about formal debate. But people ought to know that there is more to debate than just handwaving and melodramatic screeching. Especially you lot.
Carson Perry
I'm going to assume you aren't being ironic. You're missing the point of my argument, here. If you can win a debate by spreading sugar-coated lies, then you are despicable, and those listening SHOULD be able to see right through it. The problem is that people don't always see right through it, so losers like you can keep bullshitting their way through life.
