Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by ancientregime, Feb 19, 2009.
I propose that if it is to be debated, then it must be spelt correcly
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's not important whether or not US law does or doesn't care if they are scientific. In terms of this issue, my position is to prove they don't hold themselves to the highest standards (those of science).
Definitional difference between the US law and the DSM is irrelevant. It is not necessary to have consistent definitions between entities (in this case the US law and DSM) for a person to find them both to be pseudo-scientific.
As far as your choices go, they don't cover my position in general. In light of of your comments, I'll try to be more specific:
Pedophilia as defined and used by US law and the DSM is pseudo-scientific.
I agree to you being the judge, pending my opponents approval.
So what you are trying to say (and debate) is not that pAedophilia is pseudoscientific, but that the definition of pAedophilia is pseudoscientific
Woot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think what ancientregime is saying is that pedophilia/paedophilia is not a mental illness if simply defined as attraction to minors. Am I right ancientregime?
Weird topic, but not boring : shrugs :
And 'that's what it's all about' (some children's song, laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
I will not agree to debate you if my posts are to be judged and restricted to some 3-statement strict syllogistic format, because I am worried the debate will become more about format than the actual topic. I warrant that if I debate you my arguments will be logical nonetheless. If they are not, then you can use that as a point against me in the debate - just as I can for you.
How about "Defining pedophilia as a crime or mental illness is pseudoscientific?"
Actually, I'm not too worried about the exact wording of the topic. Debaters' understanding of the topic can be hashed out in the debate itself. I would agree to "Pedophilia is pseudoscience", if that's what you want.
I agree to your time extension rule. I suggest that requests for time extensions (if any) be made and agreed to in the Discussion thread for the debate, to keep the debate thread clean.
I think your stipulation argument rule is unnecessary, but will agree to it if that is what you want.
But if we cannot agree on a definition during a stipulation argument, then what? The judge decides?
I agree to scott3x being the judge, if a judge becomes necessary.
In summary, I agree to your conditions, apart from the restriction of arguments to strict syllogisms. If you can agree to drop that requirement, I invite you to open the Debate and Discussion threads and we can begin. You, as proposer of the debate, go first.
I assume the debate will be according to Standard Rules, other than the additional rules you have suggested.
Nobody gives a shit and nobody spells it that way. Spelling also changes according to USAGE....
If you refuse to use a syllogism then I will have to request some other formality. There has to be some structure for things to be considered formal. What do you think about this:
Arguments will be formed with paragraphs. Paragraphs consist of sentences. Sentences are of two types: premises and conclusions. Each paragraph may contain any number of sentences. Each sentence must be a premise, except the last sentence of a paragraph. The last sentence of a paragraph must always be a conclusion. A conclusion must never appear anywhere else in a paragraph except the last sentence.
Each concluding sentence of each paragraph must provide support for your overall argument.
Woot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. ancientregime, I must make one point that I didn't before, possibly because I wasn't sure that James would even accept a judge of any sort; from what I understand, James is the head of sciforums. As such, even if I am called in to judge something in the debate between you and James, I would still consider it as a type of 'lower court' judge, one that can be overturned rather swiftly; It is my understand that, in sciforums atleast, James has the ability to pull the plug on the forum entirely and so any judgements against something he believes him can truly only be made with his consent.
For my part, I can disagree and even be miffed when decisions are made that I don't have control over, but I've had 2 forums myself (both fairly small though) and when push comes to shove, there really can only be one head as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not James, but I personally find that the above conditions may be a bit too strict. As a matter of fact, I find debating rules in general to be fairly stultifying at times which I think is part of the reason that I made my last debate as short as possible and quickly moved over to the discussion thread which (I hope) can still keep a certain rule which I cherish above all others while dispending with the rest.
The rule that I think can be a godsend is a rule against certain insults; from my long experience posting, I have found that certain insults can be immensely detrimental to any serious discussion. As soon as one person starts with it, at the very least it tends to discourage the other party from responding, and can lead to a complete paralysis of the thread. At worst, the other party also slides into the muck; at that point, whether it stops or not is almost irrelevant as discussion can become absolutely worthless.
The rest can be helpful in certain contexts, but I prize the 'bar against certain insults' above all others. However, having seen James in various situations, I really don't think that insults is something you have to worry about with him; I find him to be like me, rather light on the insults Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Admittedly, in his case it helps that his views are more 'normal', as sometimes even someone who isn't insulting can deeply offend if their views are unconventional enough.
I decided to just write up all the rules (tentative at this point pending agreement with a challenger). James (or anyone else that wants to challenge), let me know if you would like to negotiate any changes.
There will be three participants. One debating the affirmative, one debating the negative, and a Judge for Stipulation Arguments (See Stipulation Argument below).
An entire argument will be formed using paragraphs. Each paragraph is considered a single argument. Paragraphs consist of sentences. Sentences are of two types: premises and conclusions. Each paragraph may contain any number of sentences. Each sentence must be a premise, except the last sentence of a paragraph. The last sentence of a paragraph must always be a conclusion. A conclusion must never appear anywhere else in a paragraph except the last sentence.
It is your duty to ensure the your premises support your conclusion. It is also your duty to ensure the concluding sentence of each paragraph provides support for your overall argument.
A person may demand a Stipulation Argument if they disagree or are confused with the use of a term. The Stipulation Argument may be made only after an opponent posts an argument. Once started, the Stipulation Argument must come to an end for the debate to continue. A Stipulation Argument comes to an end one of two ways: both agree on the terms new meaning or an impasse is reached. If an impasse is reached then the Judge decides on the definition of the term in question. The Judge must provide an decision using syllogism.
An example Stipulation Argument:
Both parties agreed, so the term abuse will be stipulated as: an action that causes harm. If the Stipulation Argument changes the intended meaning of the term abuse in previous argument posts, then both parties may edit their arguments to accommodate the stipulation. These edits must occur before another Stipulation Argument can be made or a rebuttal is made.
Steps of the Debate
An argument is posted. The opponent may: (a) make a stipulation argument(s), then post a rebuttal argument, or (b) just post a rebuttal argument.
This occurs for four turns and the debate ends, unless extra posts are agreed upon.
A maximum of four posts may be made by each, excluding Stipulation Argument posts. Extra posts may only occur under two conditions: both parties agree to an extra post or the Judge finds it necessary to allow for additional posts. A party should only ask the Judge as a last resort.
The debate will close if a post is not made in two days. A specific extension of days is only allowed if both parties agree.
A word may not fall into Stipulation Argument more than once, unless the judge makes an exception. A debater may request an exception from the Judge.
According to the tentative rules, you would only be making a final decision on the definition of a word if we both cannot come to an agreement. This does carry a lot of authority and can determine the outcome. If you are very biased, you could trap one of us into not being able to make a rational argument (even though there is one possible), resulting in a loss. If you are fair, it will ensure the stronger argument wins.
I feel comfortable with James even if he is the admin. No one else is challenging at this point anyway.
I know syllogisms are stultifying. Informally formatted arguments all must be taken apart and put into a syllogistic format for testing. I don't agree this should be put on the burden of your opponent.
I'm willing to compromise although, because I know it's a very rigorous expectation to state things in the most explicit and logical way possible.
So I made some clear changes.
In syllogism a person must make all their premises connected. I don't have this requirement, although anyone who does not connect their premises should do so with warning that the conclusion may not logically follow or unnecessary information is presented.
I do require all paragraphs have premises, except the last sentence. Premises represent proposals and facts. These facts in consideration all have a consequence when considered together which results in a conclusion. So, I require a conclusion at the end.
Ah. How interesting. I mention this only because I was just having trouble with someone over the definition of a word (in my case, God). You're right, it can certainly kill a discussion.
I would argue that even if I'm fair and one argument is stronger then the other, it doesn't really guarantee anything in the short term. When it comes to some issues, I believe that society is simply too engrained and it may take a long time indeed before things change.
True. Honestly, though, I think James would be one of the best people to debate with. He's gentle with his arguments; for someone like me who is rather sensitive to the harsher types of debating, it's a godsend. I've been talking about 9/11 for a while, but other then him saying that it was an immature debate (atleast that was my impression of what he said), he's never really gone further. Which I sometimes think is a shame, but who knows. There are some people who knew people who were killed on 9/11 and if James is one of them or even if it's a subject that's deeply emotioanl for him (something that's not exactly uncommon), it may be actually be fortunate that he's never actually really debated me on it.
Ok. I assume you've simply done more of this formal debating type of thing than I have. I seem to have managed alright with my perhaps more primitive approach ;-).
I don't agree. I demand a Stipulation Argument for the word fair.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Fine; from thefreedictionary.com's 8th definition:
Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.
Rules are easy enough. What's logical and ethical though; i mean, there's a whole -forum- in sciforums dedicated to ethics and morality and I think that logic is similarly hard to pin down. Put simply, sometimes even brilliant minds make mistakes in mathematical equations. In many ways, I think one could argue that math is pure logic and yet mistakes are still made. Language is by no means pure logic. You rightly realize the importance of the definition of words; but there may be certain definitions of words that James refuses to let go of, just as I have refused to let go of my definition of God. So that's one issue.
The other issue also revolves around language- perhaps it's that every word counts and while both you and James may feel that you mean the same thing when you use various words, it may not, in fact, be true. This, in turn, can cause you to see each other's arguments as mistaken and thus not be able to come to an agreement.
-However-, despite all this, I do believe it's all worth the effort. I believe that with enough discussion on important topics, the truth can be finally revealed to everyone.
Separate names with a comma.