I think that’s a revealing claim… you’ve stated that your objective is to potentially convince undecided neutrals of the strength of your position, which is not a ridiculous thing to be aiming for. But that’s VERY different from impressing judges in a formal debate situation. For instance, speaking with passion and conviction and (non-manufactured) anecdotes might convince neutral observers, even if passion and conviction are irrelevant in formal debate (and in fact one might argue they are a detriment if you are required to be able to argue either side of any proposition), and anecdotes are of course not data, and thus generally irrelevant in formal debate.
As for your claim itself, well, there’s a reason that formal debates aren’t one guy vs a mob of guys, so I think it’s a pretty meaningless claim one way or the other. If you make a claim and 20 people respond to it, and 2 of them are polite and reasoned, and 18 of them are vapid and abusive, are you at that point winning the debate because the average quality of the responses to you was, in a debate sense, low?
Why not just move the discussion to a controlled GD thread limited to a few commentors (with a parallel thread for criticism) and see how that goes?
Of course, if there are to be formal rules to the debate, such rules will have to be negotiated beforehand.
What do you think it reveals?
My objective is to convince undecided neutrals of the strength of my position. In my view, in this thread, the way I have done so would also constitute a winning debate performance as measured against the participation of my interlocutors.
Yes.
That wouldn’t really answer the question about what has happened in this thread, so far, which is the subject of the claim I made:
I rather suspect that if this debate were transplanted to GD, the volume of personal attacks, vile speculations about my daughter’s genital smell, and the like would vanish.
I’d be happy to have a GD thread, although how we could limit it to a few commentators, I have no idea.
And I reiterate, it’s a dubious and self-serving claim, adding that such would be true regardless of the identity of the claimant. “If things were different, I’d be winning.” Sure, whatever.
I recall you referencing lurkers a few times. Has anyone posted along the lines of “I’ve been following the discussion and I agree with Poster X.” ? If so, I may have missed it. I’m not otherwise inclined to seek out judges. If the topic interested them, this thread has been around long enough to come to their attention.
Request it from the GD moderators. There is precedent, I believe.
Well… my claim is not “If things were different, I’d be winning.” My claim is that right now, assuming a scored debate paradigm, I’m winning.
Undoubtedly it’s self-serving.
I see nothing in your reply that makes me question the accuracy of my paraphrase.
Presumably you mean to highlight the lack of a scored debate paradigm in place right now?
Voter confidence requires monitoring, of course:
Hmm, how can non-Republicans in Mississippi be easily identified? Anybody got any ideas?
Here’s one:
IOW, Duh.
You can interpret as you wish, but the general case for “If things were different, I’d be winning” remains relevant and accurate. The retroactive introduction of a scored debate paradigm would makes things different. QED.
Well, now, just a minute, gentlepersons! His claim has merit!
The central question of this thread, as stated in the OP, is the villainy and malign intent of Republicans use of voter id laws to suppress Dem turnout. **Bricker ** has employed a novel and possibly unique method of winning that argument, by stipulating his agreement with the premise. When he boldly asserts that Republicans are largely if not entirely and unanimously guilty as charged, he waves the French battle flag (a white fluer-de-lis on a white background) and charges boldly to the rear, surrendering with reckless abandon! Not since Robert E. Lee outmaneuvered Grant at Appomattox Courthouse has this innovative stratagem been applied so effectively!
True, he continued to flounder helplessly on the virtues of voter id as an abstract concept, but that is not the topic at hand! The topic at hand is the use of voter id to malign purpose, and on that issue,** Bricker** is largely correct! The question of the value of voter id in the abstract is not the actual topic of debate, so, no matter how badly he loses on that question, he has “won the debate”, in the strict formal rules of debate!
Which, of course, doesn’t mean shit to a tree here in the Pit but! nonetheless! he is on the winning side for the actual topic! So, yes, he won! They don’t call him the Virginia Faux for nothing.
OK, fair point. In the absence of a debate scoring model, people did stuff that they wouldn’t have if it were present – even me, although far less than my opponents. So you’re correct that if such scoring had been a known factor from the beginning, people would probably have behaved differently.
Except that being convincing to people and winning formalized debates (or, for that matter, trials) aren’t the same thing at all.
For instance, something that you frequently do during SDMB arguments, which you certainly did here, is quite deliberately NOT actually lay out your own entire position, in full. Now, from a debate/legalistic standpoint, that’s a fabulous idea. If the other guy lays out his entire position, then you’re free to attack its weakest links and put him on the defensive. That’s good sound debating strategy, pick his weak points and make the whole debate about them. But while it might be good strategy for convincing a neutral observer that you’re scoring more formal-debate-points than your opponents, it’s not necessarily a good strategy for convincing a neutral observer that your position is a good and sound one. How could it be, if you’re not even stating your position?
Imagine a back-and-forth like this:
Some liberal: Here is my impassioned and eloquent expression of my rage and frustration at this issue, which discusses the issue as a whole and gives a summary of why I hold the position I do
Bricker: In sentence 3 of your post you made an unwarranted assumption, which I will now narrowly attack
SL: debate about sentence 3, not very well
Bricker: debate about sentence 3, quite well
After an exchange like that you’re arguably ahead “on points”, but behind on actually-swayed-neutral-observers-to-your-cause.
Which isn’t to say that one shouldn’t point out errors in larger positions… I’m just trying to point out how on a higher, more holistic, level, just counting debating skills and successes doesn’t necessarily tell the story of who’s actually being more convincing.
Furthermore, if you mentally view the entire thread as a contest to see who debates better, and if you view a situation in which many of your posts are met with large amounts of rudeness rather than logic as meaning that you are winning; then that incentivizes you to post in a way that pisses people off. Because while doing so doesn’t increase communication (in fact it quite clearly harms it), it DOES increase the number of people who will respond to you with rudeness or derision, which apparently to you means that you are winning the debate. And any mindset in which your SDMB experience is actually improved by upsetting others is a very dangerous one, as far as not-being-a-jerk and not-being-a-troll are concerned.
Even if that’s given, the next stage in which you assume you would be winning is, well, dubious and self-serving.
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between how I respond to your posts and how I respond to, say, elucidator’s posts?
Would it be fair to say that sample exchange fits much more accurately into a description of my posts exchanged with elucidator than it does into the posts I have exchanged with you?
But you’re not willing to test that theory by agreeing upon a mutually acceptable judge for the proposition.
Oh, what the hell, I’ll do it:
Bricker, you lose.
There.
It’s your claim. If you want to prove it (and until and unless you can, I stand by my assessment), I feel no compulsion to humour you. I don’t care if you could line up 20 or 30 members who agree that you are “winning” (not that there’s anything to win, really). If that’s how they feel, let them post their opinions on the issue and I’ll reply if it suits me.
Frankly, this looks like the same nonsense as your earlier “you are refusing to summarize my position so you must not understand it.” I humoured you then. I am disinclined to repeat.
How would one prove such a claim, except by reference to a judge’s decision?
You cannot pile the debate points I’ve won on a scale and see that they weigh such-and-so many grams. How else would I possibly prove the claim?