Originally posted by Starscream M
I think most could see through the transparent emptiness behind quanchi level debating and would penalize rather than reward.in effect, you're drawing a strawman here yourself because I don't think anyone has delved to quanchi level debating.
That's not debating, that's just making statements regardless of the facts of a situation.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeWhile you are measuring debating skill, the medium through which you're doing this is comic book characters.
Not the bottom line, at all.If judges can't look beyond appeal to ridicule, then this does not measure someone's skill as a debater in the least. Who throws a better smear-campaign and could stoop to Quanchi's level, perhaps.
The central point of any debate is determining the winning team. If falling for a strawman trap means that your opponent ends up with substantially more time and space to counter points of critical import, then that furthers his ability to arrive at a more successful and convincing conclusion than you.
The most important criteria for a judge to determine a winner is "whose argument is the most convincing?"
No judge will award a win to the less convincing team because the more convincing team only had more time and space to convince because they strawmanned the other team.
So, yeah, it is the bottom line. To this extent, the ends justify the means.
If you DON'T fall for strawman tactics though, and point them out in your debate, then your opponents look significantly less convincing, and have likely wasted more time and space than you.
@Smurph. What you're saying is true and all, for -some- judges.
Originally posted by illadelph12
It pays to know the judges tendencies as well. The flippancy appeals to some and is frowned upon by others. I look more at details, for example, and jokes don't really embellish a point if the point is invalid. For others, if you make your opponent look like the punchline of a joke it may sway things in your favor, despite an actual tactical disadvantage, if you make yourself appear to have the upperhand in spite of being in a hole. There's a lot of factors.
This actually reminded me of Jade Empire, the game for Xbox back in 04 or so. Before having a debate against an Englishman before 9 judges, you would find out what kind of arguments they responded the most to. However, this says nothing about the quality of judges. I'm sure that some judges will enjoy the line of reasoning that puts Juggernaut's durability above Galactus, but this does not mean that they are GOOD judges. Hence why Blair's comment about Charlotte not winning anything is laughably pathetic. Why? Because winning in itself is nothing to take pride in unless you've faced a capable opponent and judges.
Hence why I place my trust in not just my own abilities, but in Badude's as well.
Originally posted by Starscream M
I think most could see through the transparent emptiness behind quanchi level debating and would penalize rather than reward.in effect, you're drawing a strawman here yourself because I don't think anyone has delved to quanchi level debating.
You do not understand what we are talking about here.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeVoting for which team you think would win is pretty universal...
@Smurph. What you're saying is true and all, for -some- judges.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeWas that when you got the musket?
This actually reminded me of Jade Empire, the game for Xbox back in 04 or so. Before having a debate against an Englishman before 9 judges, you would find out what kind of arguments they responded the most to.
The musket was sweet...
Originally posted by Kris BlazeI lol'd.
I'm sure that some judges will enjoy the line of reasoning that puts Juggernaut's durability above Galactus
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
^That's the source of my disappointment mind you.The endless Leonidas wanking when discussing tourneys. Thought I was going to face some debating-god and instead I'm talking to some tosser who can't even capitalize letters. haw-som
Leonidas is the Stone Cold Steve Austin of Tournies.
B-Dub is Ric Flair.
And yes, I used a wrestling analogy.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
Was that when you got the musket?The musket was sweet...
Yeah, the Musket even had a name.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
Voting for which team you think would win is pretty universal...
Originally posted by illadelph12
Leonidas is the Stone Cold Steve Austin of Tournies.B-Dub is Ric Flair.
And yes, I used a wrestling analogy.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeK.
You weren't old enough to play that game.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeIf it contributes to you arriving at a successful, stronger conclusion than your opponents, then it doesn't really matter if the judges disapprove.
I was mainly referring to the bit about how some wasting your opponent's time with strawman tactics is a good idea. It does waste your opponent's time, but more than a few judges will penalize for it.
If it makes you look weak or groundless with your claims, then you become less convincing, and that's the risk. Judges aren't going to decide to vote for a less convincing team that debated like gentlemen. If they can't successfully argue that Superman would beat Surfer, it doesn't matter how nice they were.
Nothing said in the match thus far should have been construed as any sort of attempt at bashing and/or straw manning. We may have disagreed with you guys, and called you out on a few points, but no one should have gotten THIS upset over it. Like leo said, this is a tourney - and while this may be my first one, I didn't come into it with the notion that things were going to be all 'Partridge Family'. Now had you fellas been hit below the belt, or blatantly bashed, I would definitely see why you'd be so disgruntled over things... But that hasn't been the case at all.
Now take a few deep breaths and try to relax. It's all good. 🙂
Originally posted by Galan007
Nothing said in the match thus far should have been construed as any sort of attempt at bashing and/or straw manning. We may have disagreed with you guys, and called you out on a few points, but no one should have gotten THIS upset over it. Like leo said, this is a tourney - and while this may be my first one, I didn't come into it with the notion that things were going to be all 'Partridge Family'. Now had you fellas been hit below the belt, or blatantly bashed, I would definitely see why you'd be so disgruntled over things... But that hasn't been the case at all.Now take a few deep breaths and try to relax. It's all good. 🙂
Yeah, we know there's going to be Flak. I just assumed that with all the hyperbole surrounding Leo, we'd see something a bit more classy. Psycho tried to gain some point by ridiculing us and that only caused him to lose even harder. I set the bar a bit higher for supposed champions like Leo. We're not debating Trick for crying out loud haermm
Originally posted by Original Smurph
If it contributes to you arriving at a successful, stronger conclusion than your opponents, then it doesn't really matter if the judges disapprove.If it makes you look weak or groundless with your claims, then you become less convincing, and that's the risk. Judges aren't going to decide to vote for a less convincing team that debated like gentlemen. If they can't successfully argue that Superman would beat Surfer, it doesn't matter how nice they were.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeThe point is that your opponents time and space is wasted, typically to a greater extent than the time/space you spent on the single comment or two that set them off (which is why it's referred to as a trap).
Straw-manning does not weaken any kind of defense, nor does it strengthen your own. That's exactly the point though. You can waste your opponent's time as much as you want, but unless you are addressing their actual point, they haven't proven anything 😐
Straw-manning weakens your opponents capacity to respond to the important bits by derailing him with small comments and even just uncalled for adjectives. Anything that causes a slight misportrayal (that's not a word... what's the word that I'm thinking of?) that your opponent feels the need to respond to.
My argument is this:
If your straw-manning is successful and leaves your opponent with less capacity to convince than you, then it is a valuable, useful tactic.