 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| User | Post |
| Logos Posts: 261/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar It's debate, of course the resolution is a normative statement. You can't debate that chocolate is food. But thanks for asking, resolutions are supposed to be what is debated, sorry if I confused anyone if made it seem like a descriptive sentence. Let me give you another example of a resolution, in a clear normative statement. Resolved, all people ought to eat chocolate. or Resolved, all just people should promote the eating of chocolate. Granted it's not a very good resolution, and by far I wouldn't argue it, but it's an example. If one notices, the second one incorporates "just" as the implied value for the debate. So the affirming threadmaker has a definite advantage in the wording of the resolution. However, I find it often the case that it is easier to negate, so it balances out. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1587/4541 |
Heh, hate to break it to you, but even what you have there contradicts itself. For instance, chocolate is good? Good is subjective, what may be good to you can not be good to someone else, or if you bring in all the other factors, such as how bad chocolate is without other things added, then people could disagree entirely with your statement.
A lot of that is good though. I'll comment on it some more later. |
| Logos Posts: 260/641 |
First of all, thread maker, choose your resolution carefully, as one who makes the resolutions decides the wording, and possible path of the debate. Don't make a topic too vague, and make sure it is a normative statement; debates about "the sky is blue" tend to be a bit complicated.
Resolution example: Chocolate is good. After that, the debate is up, and one can either affirm the resolution, or negate it. One might want to start with some sort of an outline. Defining key words can also be important, but if one uses one that is questionable, it canbe detrimental to a case. It's a good idea to have a value: some universally "good" ideal that can be commonly agreed on, e.g. truth, justice, human agency, et. al. Sometimes a value can be integrated into a resolution, for example: Resolved, Chocolate is good. Good is the overlying value of that debate, the affirming side would try to prove that chocolate has the attribute of goodness for such-and-such reasons, and the negating side would try to prove that chocolate does not in fact have the attribute of goodness. Now we move on to making a value criterion, basically, it's easiest to define it as the means to achieving the value. To continue our sugary resolution, let's say that the affirming or negating side chooses wellbeing as their value criterion, then they would have to prove gives it the attribute of goodness. The value criterion must link to the value. Because the chocolate consumed increases the wellbeing of the individual, it is good for such-and-such reason. Next, one will want some contentions, essentially reasons. For example, one could say: chocolate contains certain amino acids that promote good health. This is backed by [insert evidence and citation]. The result is a a net gain in wellbeing, achieving the value of goodness. Pure analysis often does not need as much citations as much as logic. If a contention has no impact, it is useless. The negating side also has a width of arguments to utilize. They can provide their own case, proving that chocolate is not in fact good, attack the affirming case, or try to negate the resolution in itself as being not debatable. Another point of debate is asking your opponent questions regarding their case, the downside obviously being that your opponent can make use of the question to further their own case. And don't use logical fallacies, here's a list of them here. And don't use pathetic appeals or ethos appeals either, even if you're an admin, it usually makes one look bad. And be nice. |
