Interest Check for forum game: Debate

Had an idea recently to introduce a new game to the forum community. I guess I'll start with an idea first and then I'll get into the technical details.
Please NOTE :
Objective is to win the debate, or win others over to a side but not to determine the truth.
NB : Forum Members who are not playing in a round are asked to refrain from posted in the actually game round thread.
The idea is that the host will find 3 debate topics and post them along with a start date. The host will check the number people, a minimum of 9 people is needed to play (3 judges (the host is a judge), 3 debaters a team).
The host will determine is on which team and which team represents which side of the first debate topic on the start date.
If there are more than 8 debaters per team, then the host will make a second game with the second topic (hence why you post 3 debate topics), the judges will remain the same. If there are still more people then they will go to the 3rd topic.
Each stage of the debate will take 48 hours. The host will post the official argument statements @ the ending of each stage. The next stage will begin after the host posts. The 24 hours should be counted from that point onward.

Game Play;
Stage 1:
The host will post a minimum of 3 arguments for which each team can vote on.
The host will then determine which team represents which time at the end of this stage.

Stage 2:
Team supporting the debate topic will pm their opening argument to the host
Team against the debate topic will pm their opening argument to the host
(what their argument is, why it should be like this)

Stage 3:
Team against will try to rebuttal against the supporting team

Stage 4:
Supporting team will rebuttal against the against team

Stage 5:
Supporting team and Against team will ask/answer questions to each other on thread

Stage 6:
Both teams will attempt to make a final argument.

Stage 7:
Judges will come to a conclusion as to who has the better argument and post their votes and why they?ve voted this way.

Rules:
Team members and host are not allowed to discuss arguments with people outside of their teams (where applicable).
Judges cannot give advice to the teams.
People must try to contribute to their teams.
Teams cannot mention cannot use religious belief to justify argument.
Teams that do not submit an argument within the appropriate time will lose by default.


Judging:
What are judges judging?

Components of an argument
Issue : host gives you this
Conclusion : judges determine this
Reason : teams are responsible for
Evidence : teams are responsible for
Style : teams are responsible for

Judgement will be determined by logical validity and truth of premises. Please note that the logical validity is not affected by truth and therefore something can be logically valid without being true.
For example:

1

All people who have names that begin with the letter A are Ninjas
Aelphaeis has a name that begins with the letter A
Therefore
Aelphaeis is a Ninja

The above mentioned statement is logically valid, but is not true.

Conversely,

2

All proper nouns begin with a capital letter
Aelphaeis has a name that begins with the letter A
Therefore
Aelphaeis has a girlfriend

The above mentioned statement is logically invalid, but everything said is true.

In this situation 1 will get more points than 2 even though 2 is correct and 1 is not, because 1 has more validity than 2.

Things judges will look for: (the good things)
Logical Deductive Argument Forms
1) Modus Ponens
If A then B
A
---
therefore B

2) Modus Tollens
if A then B
not B
---
therefore not A

3) Hypothetical Argument
If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
---
therefore if A then D

4) 4 chain argument
A
if A then B
if B then C
---
therefore C

5) Disjunctive argument
Either A or B
Not B and Not A
---
therefore Not A and Not B

6) Universal Instantiation (UI)
All men are Mortal
Socrates is a man
----
therefore Socrates is Mortal

7) Universal Syllogism
All As are Bs
All Bs are Cs
---
therefore All As are Cs

Things judges will look for: (the not so good things. If I get positive feedback I'll put a brief description for each of these so people know what they are)

Ad Hominem – An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person’s reasons.

Ad Populem – An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favoured by a large group is desirable.

Ad Verecundiam – Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.

Begging the question – An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning

Casual oversimplification – Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

False dilemma – Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two

Confusion of cause and effect - Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing recognize that the two events may be influencing each other.

Emotional language - The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence. Common emotions appealed to are fear, hope, patriotism, pity and sympathy.

Equivocation – A key word of phrase is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.

Wishful thinking – Making a fault assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.

Faulty analogy – Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities

Glittering Generality – The use of vague emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

Hasty Generalization - A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.

Neglect of Common Cause – failure to recognize that two events may be related because of effects of a common third factor.

Explaining by naming – Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behaviour, you have adequately explained the event

Post Hoc – Assuming that a particular event ,B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.
The impossible certainty fallacy – assuming that a research conclusion should be rejected because it is not absolutely certain.

Perfect Solution – Falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted.

Red Herring – An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue to help “win” an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue.

Slippery slope – Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such chain of events.

Straw person – Distorting your opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist.


I got a few fallacies from :
"Asking the Right Questions: guide to critical thinking" edition 9 by M.Neil Browne and Stuart M.Keeley

you'd need good topics

I would be interested, but it would really depend on the topics, like jdm said.

Concerns:
1) Topics. Most debatable topics aren't to be talked about here, therefore I'd like to ask that whatever topics are chosen are run by me first.
2) Multiple topics. I'd like to fit everything into one thread if possible, at max two. Look at mafia, where everything is on one thread. If every other topic on the front page is another part of this thread there is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltion

Concerns:
1) Topics. Most debatable topics aren't to be talked about here, therefore I'd like to ask that whatever topics are chosen are run by me first.

---

No problem, could you tell me ahead of time which topics are taboo? I'm guessing religious subjects are obvious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltion

2) Multiple topics. I'd like to fit everything into one thread if possible, at max two. Look at mafia, where everything is on one thread. If every other topic on the front page is another part of this thread there is a problem.

---

The idea is that with the current team size, 1 thread can house 19 people. 2 threads would house 35. I don't recall seeing more than 35 people in mafia before, and its less demanding than this game, personally I would be very very very very surprised if this game exceeded 19 players on any occasion.

If it really becomes a problem though, we could always just re-size the teams/judge bench accordingly per round.

Count me in. *rolls up sleeves*


Let's do this.

Taboo topics are in the rules, but its pretty much said in this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evony Team

• * politics
• * religion
• * sex and sexuality
• * personal contact information

---

Moreso covered in the rules here

And yeah, misread. Although I think the 2nd group could just wait a few days and do it in that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltion

Taboo topics are in the rules, but its pretty much said in this:


Moreso covered in the rules here

And yeah, misread. Although I think the 2nd group could just wait a few days and do it in that thread.

---

I have a question on sex and sexuality. Does this refer to anything relating or does it have boundaries. For example, there's presently an issue like "Prostitution should be made legal". While this does touch on sexuality, many of the arguments don't surround sexuality.

When I see sex and sexuality I get the impression I can't say things more dealing around the area of sexual orientation: For example a topic like "Should gay couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children?"



Each of those covers a massive topic range. So its really very limiting. I'll have to be especially creative.

Would fall under adult content.
And I hope especially creative doesn't mean trying to squirm through the rules :>

why not put it in sot then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltion

Taboo topics are in the rules, but its pretty much said in this:


Moreso covered in the rules here

And yeah, misread. Although I think the 2nd group could just wait a few days and do it in that thread.

---

Well a question about those topics. Taking some random NFL topics, would these be against the rules?



Policy - Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth?s mesosphere.

Lincoln Douglas - Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

Public Forum - Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

Resolved: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltion

Would fall under adult content.
And I hope especially creative doesn't mean trying to squirm through the rules :>

---

No, if we did that then most likely the debaters themselves would touch a taboo area. That would be problematic.

Tell me what you think about these 10 topics. I just googled Debate topics and I think I found a good website. (For = yes, Against = No)
I would of course rewrite these to their statement equivalents if they subject content is suitable.


1) Do non-human animals have rights?

2) Should age discrimination be made illegal in the workplace?

3) Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?

4) Should children be hit in school as a punishment?

5) Should cosmetic surgery be banned?

6) Should the number of years it takes to achieve an undergraduate degree by shortened?

7) Should HIV positive workers have to tell their employers of their status?

8) Should parents be held morally and legally responsible for the actions/needs of their children?

9) Do schools have the right to search students' lockers? (without warrants.. naturally)

10) Can terrorism ever be justified?

(I really like number 10, I think its the most iffy one on the list)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aisukaze

Well a question about those topics. Taking some random NFL topics, would these be against the rules?



Policy - Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth?s mesosphere.

Lincoln Douglas - Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

Public Forum - Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

Resolved: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense.

---

1 - possibly fine unless it gets too much about the gov't
2 - possibly fine
3 - politics
4 - politics
5 - politics
6 - possibly fine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aelphaeis

No, if we did that then most likely the debaters themselves would touch a taboo area. That would be problematic.

Tell me what you think about these 10 topics. I just googled Debate topics and I think I found a good website. (For = yes, Against = No)
I would of course rewrite these to their statement equivalents if they subject content is suitable.


1) Do non-human animals have rights?

2) Should age discrimination be made illegal in the workplace?

3) Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?

4) Should children be hit in school as a punishment?

5) Should cosmetic surgery be banned?

6) Should the number of years it takes to achieve an undergraduate degree by shortened?

7) Should HIV positive workers have to tell their employers of their status?

8) Should parents be held morally and legally responsible for the actions/needs of their children?

9) Do schools have the right to search students' lockers? (without warrants.. naturally)

10) Can terrorism ever be justified?

(I really like number 10, I think its the most iffy one on the list)

---

1. seems fine/possibly religious
2. seems fine
3. possibly religious
4. possibly religious/moralistic
5. seems fine
6. seems fine
7. possibly too adult
8. possibly religious/moralistic
9. seems fine
10. politics

Reason for possiblies: Things have a way of straying/focusing on something not allowed.

I support this thread. You have my sword Ael!

And my axe - if interesting topics are found - but so far its not looking bright >.>

Update :
Changed the rules to say that if your team doesn't submit an argument then you lose.
Reason :
Want to add structure and order to the game

Update :
Added rule cannot use cannot use religious belief to justify arguments.
Reason :
Against forum rules
Makes it very easy to change the focus of the debate to whether or not God exists
Not everyone believes in God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mati2

This sounds like quite good fun. As long as you pick a good topic for the first one, I'll do it.

---

i will play as long as im on the wonderful Mati-team :D

I am in, depends on topic though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mati2

You might want to clarify this to "cannot use religious belief to justify argument" since "god" does not cover religious texts, atheism, polytheism, spiritualism etc.

---

Good advice is good.

No way in hell I'm getting involved in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasterbee

No way in hell I'm getting involved in this.

---

you bothered to post which gets you involved.

Time to dust off my old Mace Debating rules and my gavel... well, I used them about six weeks ago, but that's a long time in my book, so they are dusty.

You have my 'limited' support.

I like this game idea.

like the thread or brotherhood post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fayaz

like the thread or brotherhood post?

---

The game idea.

Seems like an interesting idea, but who'll want to debate with me.

Needs to be good topics though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morgan le Fay

Needs to be good topics though.

---

Yes, definitely need good topics. Otherwise it would be boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morgan le Fay

Seems like an interesting idea, but who'll want to debate with me.

Needs to be good topics though.

---

Morgan, you can't be as bad as one person I know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morgan le Fay

Seems like an interesting idea, but who'll want to debate with me.

Needs to be good topics though.

---

Oh wait wait wait. Ok I'll play one time, I'll debate Morgan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasterbee

Oh wait wait wait. Ok I'll play one time, I'll debate Morgan.

---

Who would win though? :p

I would play.

Seems like most good debatable topics violate the rules.

Update :
Explicitly stating that once that game has begun. People who are not participants of the game cannot reply to the thread
Reason :
These people could significantly derail the thread and have heated arguments about debates which would force moderators who cannot pass a blind eye to this sort of thing to lock/ban/delete the thread.

Update :
The phases/stages of the game are being augmented to include a voting stage. The voting stage will consist of host posting approved topics (probably 3) from which members involved can vote from. The voted topic will become the topic of debate. People who do not vote on a topic may be removed from the game (they may abstain from voting if they have no preference but should say so).
Reason :
Many people feel that the game will fail without good topics. It is my personal belief what a "good" topic is a very subjective thing and instead of forcing the host to look for a good option, it may be more suitable to give a sample of appropriate topics from which the group can choose the one that appeals to them more. This "wiggle" room may help to give this game the element of interest as the players have greater choice in the matter; furthermore, it will add an element of randomness that can help to spice the game up as you may need to be flexible under the condition that the game topic is different from your preference.
People who do not vote for a topic I feel may not have the commitment to actually play the game. If they do not participate despite saying they would, there should be some punishment to prevent more damage (ban from future games?) as it could hamper the team in an unrecoverable way.

Huh

So am I in or out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aelphaeis

10) Can terrorism ever be justified?

---

This is the only one I see as being problematic. People have been banned before for evoking 9/11 with a lack of sensitivity, and I can't imagine this debate question playing out in a way that didn't bring in 9/11.

Questions 1 - 9 are good to go. Some of the questions (teachers hitting kids, locker searches, etc) are defined already in law, but it may be interesting to debate around the issues nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

This is the only one I see as being problematic. People have been banned before for evoking 9/11 with a lack of sensitivity, and I can't imagine this debate question playing out in a way that didn't bring in 9/11.

Questions 1 - 9 are good to go. Some of the questions (teachers hitting kids, locker searches, etc) are defined already in law, but it may be interesting to debate around the issues nonetheless.

---

I actually found something really nice piece on the terrorism in propaganda literature , and this really compelled me to what to use it as a debate topic. The argument was overall very strong with the exception of 1 mistake that I found. To summarize what was said (to the best of my memory which admittedly is only human) it was basically saying how a terrorist to one person can be a freedom fighter to another and how terrorism is a loaded term used to provoke emotion with no real definition. This equivocation with the word terrorism makes the others point clear that people should not take what governments say for granted; furthermore, if memory serves me right this piece was actually written before 9/11 and not even written by an American! To put topic number 10 into context, it would more accurately be referred to as : "Freedom Fighting Verses Terrorism: Can we distinguish?". Now this entire paragraph is somewhat walking on a gray line, but if you want I can email my propaganda literature teacher and get the name of the piece for you to read.

As for your comment statements defined by law. You raise an interesting point in addition to a fury over some red rep someone gave me when they were using the perfect solution fallacy and failed to see the error and their logic! :@ (Back to the point)

To augment what you say, I think we can all agree that not all legal or justice systems, or any for that matter, are perfect. As a result many laws can be subject to debate. Now I'm not saying that we should argue over whether or not it should be legal to commit murder, even if common sense isn't particularly common anymore we need to know where we ought to draw the line.

Furthermore, I can tell you for a fact that not every single country has all of these defined by the same standard if at all by any! I know that Corporal Punishment laws differ from country to country, I think that in itself is a very controversial issue.

Finally, for reference when I say controversial issue (although even in general) in the context of this thread, I really mean to say that many professionals who are knowledgeable about the particular field of information agree on the majority of premises but cannot agree on the conclusion. This means that as far as I'm concerned the economy of Europe is a controversy. It also means that the fact that it is a matter of opinion is completely disregarded by me (although its implicitly defined in the definition if you're looking for it).

I think people who have had experience with a structured debate would definitely enjoy this. I can't put myself in with that group. I'll be watching, and holding my own opinions...but, that's all I'd do.

I'd wish you all the fun of it, though. :D

Update: Added Neglect of a common cause fallacy, The impossible certainty fallacy and definitions for all previously mentioned fallacies.

Reason : I think that we have a lot of support, after working out the fine line details I believe we can do a practice round of the game.

Update : Removed Assumptions from fallacy list

Reason : Assumptions in themselves aren?t bad; however, under certain conditions they are, sometimes assumptions must be made. I think that there is adequate coverage of the misuse of assumptions with the other fallacies and that this is not really necessary as a fallacy category.

Update : Remove Argument suffix on Fallacies List

Reason : I think the fact that they are used in arguments is self apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mati2

You could always tweak the intro as needed throughout, instead of trying to anticipate every eventuality before hand. Fyi though, I do think assumptions are a fallacy because by their very definition they are things accepted/proclaimed without proof.

---

Simply put (short version):
Lets consider the logical deductive argument form Hypothetical argument.

If I hold my girlfriend's hand, we hug each other more
If I hug my girlfriend more, we kiss more
If I kiss my girlfriend more, shes has more intimate feelings for me
If my girlfriend has more intimate feelings for me, she sleeps over at my house more
If my girlfriend sleeps over at my house more, we eat lots of KFC.

Therefore, if I hold my girlfriends Hand, me and my girlfriend eat a lot of KFC.
Although its implicit, the assumption here is that I have a girlfriend, and that if the supposition is true then the consequence is also always true.

Of course this is a really trivial example, but I thought it humorous and it gets the point across.
Point of the matter is that all hypothetical situations are based on assumptions.

More Thoroughly Put :

Definition for Assumption (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption) :

noun
1.
something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.


Now, to avoid the situation of someone claiming I used an equivocation.

Definition for Granted (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Granted):
4.
to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point.


In a hypothetical argument we say:
If A then B,
If B then C,
If C then D,
therefore,
If A then D

The word if implies that A has not yet happened. We cannot necessarily prove that B will occur because of A. Furthermore we cannot say that if D is true then A is true. We are taking for granted that If A then B is true, along with every other aspect of that situation. As a result we are making an assumption.

Its possible that you could say that this is too vague and too loose, so I'll throw in the word Hypothesis which should fit synonymously.

Definition for Hypothesis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypothesis) :

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

It is our hypothesis that if B is true, then C is also true.

Last but not least, you should note that all premises are assumed to be true. Hence the difference between truth and logical validity which I explained in the OP; furthermore, the definition for assumed as used in the definition for Hypothesis is the same as it was previously defined at the top.

I want to take special note to say that you are not wrong in saying that they accepted without proof; but under correct conditions its fine to have something that can be said without proof.

I hope that was clear, sometimes these things can be pretty tough to explain and I can't exactly say I went to teachers college.
If nothing else, the book I'm using for reference says its okay, so believe the book.

@ Mati2 : Although I'm not particularly close to very many people on the OT forum I've seen many instances in which peoples ability to use logical deduction has surprised me. Mafia is a good example of where it shows. So I'm expecting people to really do really well on this. I'm excited to see what will happen.

Sign up has been started in this thread :
http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?t=192676

This is really a round to help get through all the kinks
so I've used confirmed topics that were posted in this thread.