There have been a lot of fantastic debates in this section of the forums, so I thought we could make things a bit more "interesting." Here's how it works: I will create profiles on which 2 people will debate one-on-one on a topic of their choosing. You will receive points based on 3 categories: argument strength, evidence, and refutation. Argument strength is just that - how strong are your arguments. Logical fallacies and cogency of the argument play a strong role here (so, is the argument "correct" and does it make sense). Your spelling and grammar are important to, so either get a browser with spell-check or put your comments in Word or something that can check your spelling. Evidence is articles or journals to which you can provide links to help support your argument. How reliable the evidence is also matters, so Wikipedia articles will not count towards evidence. Refutation means being able to counter what your opponent is saying. If you can point out flaws in their argument or present counter-examples to their arguments then you can get points in this category. The debate will go on until a predetermined score has been reached. The winner will have his or her best argument point merited - thus receiving 25 AP! ---- So, if you want to join, just put your name, the topic you would like to debate about, and how many points you would like to go to (I would suggest maybe 10 or 15 for right now, I'm not exactly sure how all the scoring will work out yet). Also include your stance on the topic. Once you have this info posted, you have just given out a challenge and anyone can challenge you. If you would like to challenge someone, then post your name, their name, and the topic. Feel free to create multiple challenges, so long as you can keep track of them all! Once two debaters have been matched, I'll post a link to the profile on which you guys will be debating.
I think that's everything, but here's an example of a challenge:
Name: Moegreche Topic: Does God exist? My stance: God does not exist!
If someone were to challenge me, then they would have to argue an opposing view to mine (in this case, that God does exist). So, let the debates begin, and if anything is unclear or if I've missed anything then let me know either on this thread or on my profile. Thanks, and happy debating!!
Actually I got a prove... Try to take a look at this link. It's actually official: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time/
HOw is that official? It's still an opinion of a magazine, it's not proof off any kind when you consider that there's not a set value you can use to determine "best".
It's one of the biggest or the biggest music magazine that are out there... And the people who decide that are experts. It's the most official you can get.
You can argue however who was the highest ranked guitarist (you would have to show other forms of proof as well, though RollingStones is a big hit).
I could not debate taht the Beatles are the best band to ever hit the world, but I can say that they are the most popular and most popular band of all time. There is actual proof there, but this is not the place to argue that.
Well, this goes way back to Moe's thread about what constitutes knowledge, and what the grounds for proof are.
If you have sufficient education, you'll learn that there's not that much difference between an argument and an opinion- as long as you are able to establish a set of criteria with some value that you can convince others of.
However, you gotta do it right, otherwise you'll get shot down by posts like Mega's. To say "this magazine states therefore it's official" is an appeal to authority, upon which the value of authority or the validity of said authority can be called into question. More convincing is "this magazine states this, based on the following criteria" and then argue that the criteria are valid/have value.
To put it in laymens terms, arguing that Jack White is the best guitarist based on the fact that Rolling Stone said so is the same argument that your mother gives for coming home on time: "Because I said so, thats why!"
There is no reasonable proof, as Strop said, it is an appeal to authority.
...but to say Jack White is the best guitarist based on technique, record sales/performances, number of citations and awards across the range...these might meet with more success.
I mean, let's take a closer look. If I based my argument on record sales/revenue from performance, I'd say that economic worth is the mark of success (as believed by those in the commercial rap game). If I based my argument on technique, I'd could argue that there was a single benchmark standard, or I could say Jack White had the best combination etc. If I based my argument on how widely the critics acclaim him, I could say that it is ultimately the people who decided the worth of a guitarist (argumentum ad populum, ordinarily a logical fallacy of sorts, but...when the debate is as subjective as this, I could mount a real argument that this is sufficient!)
Proof however is an objective term. Ordinarily it means "beyond reasonable doubt" but I would be very unwilling to use it in any argument outside of the world of formal mathematics.
i want to take you up on the drugs topic, if it is available.
I am not saying i am for drugs, your arguments just pretty weak from the looks of your stance so i want to see if i can beat it even if i am not arguing my position.
G'haa ahaa! Sorry, been crazy busy lately. There are some debates that haven't started for some reason. Hm, I guess I need to set up profiles. I have a list here of debates, um... okay. Let me set up a few new accounts and I'll have everyone set up in just a few minutes (I hope)!!
good_gamer vs. Ricador on http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_Politics2
Chiliad_nodi vs. Skipper on http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_Politics1
Killertron vs. Ubertuna on http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_Religion1
Bbyer vs. Ubertuna on http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_Morality2
Some quick notes: If I list your name first, then you must present your argument first. There is now a 48 hr. time limit for responses. Each debating profile should have a list of rules on it. If yours doesn't, please let me know on my profile.
I left out the Outsourcing Labor topic because I have Uber and Strop already written down on my little pad for doing that one, but I think I might be confused. If you guys will post on my profile to let me know what's going on, I would appreciate it. If I have left out any other debates, please let me know on my profile.
Argument: Sonic wins because he is much faster that Mario and has built in spines for weapons (Note: this is NOT about thier games so plz don't bring them into this)
