Interest Check for forum game: Debate

[Morgan le Fay]

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

Who would win though?

[jorbaud]

I would play.

Seems like most good debatable topics violate the rules.

[Aelphaeis]

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.

[rasterbee]

Huh

So am I in or out?

[Boleslav]

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.

[Aelphaeis]

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).

[Fallbreeze]

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.

[Aelphaeis]

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.

[Aelphaeis]

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.

[Aelphaeis]

@ 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.