Bricker, a long-time member of this board, a member of the SDSAB, an informed poster, a skilled debater, etc., has decided that he is sick and tired of debating people who don’t take debate as seriously as he does. He’s sick and tired of being sick and tired of weak arguments, and he’s fed up with people who take blatantly weak positions because there are no consequences to being wrong in the SDMB’s Great Debates forum.
Bricker thinks that people arguing in Great Debates need to have something substantial at stake in order to force them to be better debaters, so, he has adopted a tactic of challenging people to bet on the outcomes of legal issues.
Furthermore, Bricker is a known gambling enthusiast, which is fine for him personally, but he seems not to understand that not everyone has the same attitude towards gambling nor do they necessarily have the means to engage in a pay-to-play debate thread. Anytime someone rejects his challenge, he ascribes it to not having the guts or confidence to risk a loss to him, and he belittles claims that there might be other reasons.
I have labeled this tactic as an attempted coup d’état to try to forcefully remake the culture of the Great Debates forum. It’s fine if Bricker would wish for a debate forum in which “weak” arguments are banned or heavily discouraged or if anyone expressing an opinion were required to back it up with money, but that’s really not what a lot of participants in Great Debates seem to be interested in.
In this thread, Marley gave Bricker a warning for playing his betting card with insults, but stated that the betting gambit itself is not against the rules. I would like to put forward the proposition that this tactic is inherently belittling and humiliating and it perhaps should be against the rules to try to strong-arm participants in Great Debates using this tactic.
Bricker is a participant in almost all the most interesting debate threads and when he posts he posts frequently in a thread. Putting him on ignore would either ruin the thread by creating gaping holes in the discussion or would be pointless because nearly everything he posts is quoted by other posters.
Betting is not inherently belittling and humiliating, and it should not be against the rules. Bricker has been eager to make bets on what he has firmly believed ever since I’ve been on the boards, and to the best of my knowledge, has always paid up when he’s lost.
Many posters like to identify certain actions on their opponents part as indicating a lack of confidence in their argument; Bricker’s gig just happens to be betting. If he chooses to believe that a lack of interest in betting indicates a lack of faith in my argument, that’s his problem, not mine. As you note, he’s received a mod note for pushing it beyond a simple offer to bet, and that is as it should be.
(Marley’s post is here, for those disinterested in wading through the thread.)
It’s ironic that such a weak argument could be used in support of calling other arguments weak. Of course there are the standard flaws like not trusting the other person to pay or trying to weasel out of the bargain, and not believing in gambling, but another more subtle flaw is the relative marginal value of money.
If one person is unwilling to bet and the other is, it does not mean that the latter’s argument is stronger. Both arguments could be equally strong, but the former person is poorer and so has more to lose if they lose the bet.
I don’t like the tactic myself, but in the past we’ve allowed wagers or even one member paying another to go away. Nobody is obliged to take a bet if it’s offered, and nobody is obliged to accept the premise that the person obviously isn’t committed to their ideas because they won’t wager on it.
Internet gambling is illegal, and gambling itself is illegal in many places. That’s the route you should have gone if you want them to make him stop it. Though I’m not entirely sure it applies in this case–you’d expect Bricker to know if it did.
I agree that it’s annoying, but only because Bricker puts so much stock in it. Even if I’m 95% sure something is true, I’m not going to bet on it–and that’s without taking into account the venue. Yet that means I’m pretty dadblasted confident. My refusing to bet doesn’t invalidate what I believe in any real sense.
It might be useful to tell us how confident Bricker is in his prediction, but I also don’t know how much money he has to spend nor his utility value for money. Seems he could just tell us that instead of challenging us to make a bet.
But, yeah, I see no reason not to let him do it. That means we get to tell him how stupid it is every time. Let him know his one decent rhetorical technique won’t work.
I am not a lawyer. But it seems to me by allowing the behavior, the SDMB is facilitating the appearance of, or possibly actual existence (complicity?) in online gambling. YMMV.
In my irrelevant opinion, the Betting Gambit is a sneaky ad hominem.
The acid test of an ad hominem argument is whether the argument addresses the subject of the argument, or the character of the arguer.
“Put your money where your mouth is” calls the character of the opponent into question. The implication is that the argument is less valid because its proponent won’t support it with a wager.
The wager is irrelevant. The belief or faith the arguer holds in the proposition is irrelevant.
Otherwise, defense attorneys would never take a case if they actually believed the defendant was actually guily.
One of the most important characteristics of a good debater is the ability to convincingly, skillfully, and comprehensively defend a position that the debater doesn’t actually agree with. The Betting Gambit ignores that possibility, and makes propositions about facts and evidence into a proposition about faith.
Exactly. I don’t bet. I don’t bet on games where it’s a sure win for me, because that removes pleasure from the endeavor rather than adding pleasure. I dislike the experience of gambling.
I have nothing against people who do bet, and I’ve followed some of the wagers on this board with interest. But a suggestion that my unwillingness to bet shows a lack of confidence in my views is idiotic.
As for consequences for getting predictions wrong, I hold up adaher, who gets routinely reminded about his poor predictions. People who think confident, incorrect predictions matter are holding him accountable for it. He rejects their accountability, but nevertheless people keep reminding him and others.
Bricker, if you think that specific liberal posters have a track record of making confident, incorrect predictions, by all means hold them accountable. Be the change you want to see.
I’m not seeing the appearance of danger, though. There are laws against casino games and sports betting online, but there’s no law against one person on a website saying to another “wanna bet?”
It’d sure be nice to have the mods cut that silly hijack off whenever **Bricker **pulls it, which is just about always lately. It just shuts off any discussion, replacing it with what amounts to a personal accusation of insincerity - but never one supported by even the slightest conjecture as to why the accused would bother to post it.
There is no legal danger in hijacking a thread, either, and this is what Bricker’s bet situation does(in my opinion). Who, in, who’s out, what is being bet, conditions of winning etc.-all this is a distraction from the action topic of the thread.
