Seriously? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Not the character. Just how sure the opponent is of his own argument.
All the arguments against the tactic are just distractions.
I can think of only one reason to forbid this tactic: as evidenced by all the caterwauling in this thread, Bricker’s point has been massively made, and further use of the tactic is unnecessary.
Actually the tactic has potentially wider benefits. The process of negotiation can encourage clearer thinking and clarify what the best presentation of one’s position is.
Serious students of the social sciences regularly mark their beliefs to market. So after the bet closes down, there is a postmortem discussion which should be conducted in good faith.
I can illustrate with the non-bet I had with regards to Bricker’s prediction about 2012 elections. Bricker noted that high unemployment indicated an Obama loss, based upon recent history. I thought back to Nate Silver’s posts on the subject, as well some of the writings of Ray Fair and said something, “You seem pretty confident, Brick: will you give me 3:1 odds?”
A: “I am not 3:1 confident. I am even money confident”.
That’s an entirely fair response. It’s also a revealing one: Bricker actually wasn’t highly confident at all, though he was at least minimally so. After you’ve played this game a couple of times, betting becomes a humbling process.
Now there are and were pretty good reasons to believe Bricker was wrongheaded. There are a large number of statistics that correlate with Presidential victory due to the small sample sizes we are working with. But the best predictors of the margin of victory relate to the growth of the economy (or in this context the election year change in the unemployment rate) rather than its actual level. Noteworthy economist Ray Fair passed over Bricker’s preferred measure years ago, and his out of sample predictive power has been more than decent.
But you can only have such a postmortem discussion in the face of a clear and well defined prediction or stance. And a bet where odds are set provides exactly that – the stakes frankly aren’t really primary considerations.
ETA: Visit longbets.org for an example of how this process can work.
Well, if that’s your aim with the bets, then your MO should be clear: contact the poster in private, via PM, and only if an agreement on a bet comes to pass, make this public (perhaps preferably in a separate thread). Everything else looks just like a cheap trap, because the outcomes are not evenly distributed; you make it look like there’s only a win/loose issue, but there are three options: other party declines, other party accepts and looses, other party accepts and wins. Only the last one is unfavourable for you, while the first two are unfavourable for the other party; thus, by openly proposing the bet, you effectively force the other party to either accept the cost of declining, or risking the loss, while you only have the second option to worry about, thus dragging the discussion on uneven ground, slanted unfairly in your favour.
I’d thus expect to see the matter of the bet settled in private; everything else really just cheapens your argument by making it look like you are not trying to engage the issue, but the credibility and standing of the other poster. By establishing the terms and conditions via PM, you retain the full force of the bet as a commitment to deciding an issue one way or the other, while the issues of clutter and unfair framing of the debate no longer arise. Everybody wins!
I did, yes. But that’s not the only $2 I’ve taken in my life.
Yes, and it was earlier in the thread than the bit I quoted, I believe. And the parenthetical portion of that quote was extensively debated and absent from Steve’s later statement, the one you were responding to when you made the bet.
That’s how things SHOULD work. You made a strong, persuasive case that the Ohio law had aspects that didn’t apply to Virginia, and Steve modified what he said accordingly. You won that part of the debate!
So why bet him based on that earlier, stronger statement instead of on his later one which was, probably because of your points, weaker?
That is obvious, yes.
Half Man, Half Wit got it exactly right (IMHO) a few posts up. The asymmetrical consequences of refusing a bet must be taken into account. Allowing only the offer of a bet (once!) in a GD thread (and, if appropriate, announcing the eventual outcome), and doing all the rest of the bet arrangements in a different thread (in a different forum), would minimize the pernicious effects of this asymmetry.
I admit that my own ignorance has been fought by a few posts in this thread supporting the idea of betting as sometimes a useful tool for focusing a debate. I just might try to overcome my own personal discomfort with betting, and heed a previous poster’s suggestion that more of us should accept Bricker’s offers to bet – he is far from always right.
On a related note, I have been attempting to comply with the moderating instructions given in post 67 by Marley:
Because this is ATMB, in which discussions of moderator actions are permitted, I raised an objection:
But from other posters:
A reasonable response to an accusation of classism could certainly involve politics. But I felt constrained by the moderation and didn’t wish to risk a warning.
When I said as much, Marley responded:
That doesn’t address the fact that others continue to raise politics with impunity, but I cannot.
When I raised THAT point, Bryan noted:
Which is of course abundantly clear, and becoming even more so with this thread.
How can I possibly respond to this while avoiding the “partisan commentary [that] doesn’t belong in this thread?”
If I ignore the instruction and reply in kind, Marley can easily justify a warning: after all, I ignored a clear moderation instruction. And if I comply, Marley can equally well simply “fail to see” the other posts that invoke partisan commentary, or, if forced to address their existence, can respond with a moderator note, or a general admonition that he really means it! (But impose no penalty, just as none has been imposed thus far).
Bryan’s correct – but I apparently still have the right to highlight the precise method by which the uneven treatment is being applied. And I’m doing just that with this post.
Marley: again, I feel that partisan imbalance is precisely the issue here. But if you don’t, then why permit only my opponents to invoke it, and not me?
Please reconsider your guidance. I have reported this post in order to ensure it’s not somehow missed.
He never repudiated his earlier post. He simply made some additional statements, without clarifying that his earlier statements were no longer supported – if, indeed, that’s what he meant. And i doubt it, because a year later, responding to my first “call out,” he said:
Note the total absence of any “Bricker, I modified my stance later,” corrections in that post.
Is THAT how things should work?
So the issue seems to be that you want an explicit concession. “I admit I was wrong about that assertion, Bricker, and you were right.” Either on words or in the form of paying you a gambling loss.
I take it you are aware that for many people, making such a concession involves a major loss of face and severe humiliation. So a lot of people are going to do a lot to resist that.
And given that people participate in Great Debates for the fun of it, you also realize that accepting humiliation is going to make it a lot less fun?
And this seems like your overall strategy … Purge the participants who don’t live up to your debating standards by making it no fun to debate with you. Is that about it? You want to make Great Debates an unwelcome place for people who violate your notion of the rules of good debate.
No, that neuters one of the key aspects of the “bet gambit”, and the supposed mission of this MB-- to fight ignorance. If one truly thinks a false prediction is being made; one that displays a high level of ignorance, then we want that ignorance exposed. The reader can judge for himself if declining the bet is simply because one doesn’t like to bet or because one doesn’t really believe one’s own post.
Acsenray: There are plenty of forums to participate in purely “for fun” here. Great Debates is supposed to be more serious, and if one’s idea of fun is spouting nonsense, then yes, that forum would be better without such people. Trolling is fun, too, for those who do it.
If that sort of “fun” is desired, there’s MPSIMS, IMHO, Game, CS… every forum except GD and GQ.
The purpose of debate, and of GD, is not to salve the hurt feelings experienced by those who were factually wrong. So, yes, if such a concession is required, I think they should make it, and I don’t care a whit for their “major loss of face,” or their “severe humiliation.” Those objections read almost like a parody, quite frankly. GD is not to have fun if the “fun” involves making factual claims and then skipping gaily away when those factual claims are proven false in order to avoid loss of face.
You could have attempted to refute my claim that bets are classist without invoking politics, not that you did (because you can’t, because they are). Class and political affiliation are correlated, but it’s not 1/1. For example, I live in a rich liberal area and am related to many poor Bible Belt conservatives. I never stated or even *implied *that you offer to make bets because you are a Republican. Merely that offering to do so is offensive to lower-class (i.e. poor) people.
At first I saw the betting gambit simply as a distraction, a hijack, intentional or not. But now I’m seeing it more in Acsenray’s terms – a requirement for an explicit concession, or at least a clear winner and loser. I suppose that is natural enough for someone like Bricker, being the usual system in courtrooms. But I’m even less comfortable with ‘wannabet’ now than I was before.
I’m sorry but I cannot envision GD having that level of adversarial formality and remain a place I will enjoy. I post for fun, but also to learn. I am not above defending my sillier positions even after my foolishness is pointed out, but I think I usually manage to back-peddle my way into a more informed position as I learn from other posters. Will I actually concede defeat? Maybe. I like to delude myself into believing that I’m big enough to do so if there is an actual factual point to concede. Or I’ll be pig headed and make a fool of myself defending an untenable position. Or I might just slink away. I’ll accept the social consequences of my actions, and anyone is free to call up my history to impugn my further postings. That is fine with me. And it should be enough loss of face and loss of credibility to satisfy my opponents. Humiliation should not be necessary, or at least should be reserved for posters who make a habit of posting stupidities. (We can all think of an example or two 
)
I have been persuaded by posters above that in certain instances involving clearly definable factual matters or predictions, a wager on the outcome might sharpen or focus the debate. But I think such instances are vanishingly rare. The examples posted here (the TX VRA thread and Bricker’s VA domestic abuse thread) only lend themselves to a wager by paring things down to a miniscule question and ignoring every other point of discussion and nuance offered by all the additional voices in the thread. I see this as a bug, not a feature. Our current system may not be a formal debate, but it does at least provide some fun – and some information. I think the balance should be retained.
If we are going to see more of this wagering, I’d like it to be unobtrusive. Say “Wannabet? I’ll post in GR”. Anyone who wishes to take up the challenge can go to GR – or not. I’d like to see nothing further in the originating thread – no terms and conditions, and no reports of acceptance or decline. If anything, a final report, if such is timely and the thread is still current, could be reported. “Back at Post X we made a bet (cite GR) and I’m proud to say I was right and Loser lost! Gleeful celebrations may commence!” If the original thread is no longer active, Winner could post the gloating in MPSIMS. Or maybe allow such direct resolutions of wagered points to be themselves the OP of a new GD thread so we can all hash out the ramifications. But please let us not make wagering, and arguing about wagers, a mainstay of GD.
And is there a strong correlation between political affiliation and poor people? The fact that there is underlies one of the main objections to Voter ID, does it not? Why is that argument so compelling when discussing Voter ID but so severable here?
It seems implicit to me that when someone uses a similar construction but changes the content of it, they’ve changed their position.
No, it’s not, because you turned it from a productive discusion into a grudge-match, and he stopped responding in the productive discussion format and responded instead in the grudge-match fashion. It’s difficult to believe you think that’s a superior approach to your previous approach, which was to debate the facts and to win the debate.
But this ignores the fact that as long as your untenable position was liberal, there will be no adverse social consequences. You fought the good liberal fight; no one here blames you for being wrong when your heart was so clearly in the right place!
I’m out on a limb here in making this argument, given the moderation instruction to avoid partisan distinctions. But that aspect is key to rebutting the claim that social consequences alone are sufficient to deter such conduct.
I have repeatedly reported the posts in which this has come up, and repeatedly asked for a reconsideration of the ruling. So far, no response.
I will report this post as well.
That sounds like a good decision, then. The comment itself wasn’t political and you’ve both made your points. I don’t think it’s worthwhile to go back and forth over whether or not offering bets is classist.
I’m pretty sure you can respond without characterizing other posters as whining or mocking them for being plaintive. If you can’t, then you should probably just not respond. I didn’t tell you not to mention politics. I was saying that partisan taunts - like characterizing posts as “whining” or “plaintive complaints” - aren’t appropriate for ATMB.
This is just going to turn into a hijack.
So you seem to be hinting that I should not press a person to recant an earlier untenable claim; i should just move along and be happy he’s no longer saying it?
That’s not how I see debate going in an arena supposedly interested in combating ignorance. Indeed, leaving ambiguity afoot would be the OPPOSITE of combating ignorance: it would be coddling it.
If Slyvia Browne or John Edwards posted here, making some psychic prediction about the future, and then later tried this approach of modifying their claim without explicitly conceding the error of their first statements…how would this board react?
I guarantee you their contradictions would not be left alone. Indeed, their claims would be held aloft, the falsity pointed about, and specific concessions of error would be demanded.
Right? C’mon – you know this.
You want me to be friendly, to adopt a sort of avuncular, parental attitude…“It’s enough that he learned; he doesn’t need to say it out loud?” Right? But we wouldn’t let Uri Geller go on like that. Because we know that fighting ignorance should demand unambiguous, clear statements of fact.
Assuming you’re moderating with this post, I disagree.
Why, in ATMB, is it acceptable to call my offering a wager “disgustingly classist,” but not acceptable for me to characterize a remark as “plaintive?”
And it’s not a hijack: it’s a question of what tactics are acceptable. How can the same person genuinely feel that it’s reasonable to say, “Poor people vote Democratic, for the most part,” when discussing Voter ID, and then disclaim the relationship when discussing the wherewithal to accept a wager?
But fine – you’ve said it’s all right to mention politics, which is what I wanted clarified, so I’ll drop this second issue, hijack or not.
I’d still like to learn how “plaintive” is unacceptable in ATMB but “disgustingly classist” is acceptable.
I have a guess, of course.