ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 16th May 2018, 05:38 PM   #881
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,191
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Now come on people when has a failed science fiction writer with a nonsensical religious theory ever turned out bad?

*Beat*

Okay except for that one time.
Are we talking about Scientology or Battlestar Galactica?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:40 PM   #882
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,321
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Give me a question that I've been avoiding.
You've been told to pick any of the dozens. Effectively do so.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:43 PM   #883
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Give me a question that I've been avoiding.
No. Go find them yourself.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:47 PM   #884
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,191
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You've been told to pick any of the dozens. Effectively do so.
This is part of Jabba's unstated method. "Remind me of your arguments," takes several forms, all of which aim to shift responsibility back on his critics. While Jabba obstructs directly in some cases, at other times he tries to make it seem like his critics are the obstacles, always on the hook to produce this or that because he asked for it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:51 PM   #885
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,321
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Give me a question that I've been avoiding.
But I will give you props for conceding defeat in the argument about SOdhner being the center of the universe, which you should have easily won, while simultaneously proving your method of Effective Debate to be the worst possible method available.

Not the method you give lip service to, the one you actually employ.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:51 PM   #886
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Okay so now that the mock debate has finished let's step back and look at it - that was the whole point, right?

For myself, the main thing I learned is that despite saying this debate process was something he had worked on and thought about for a long time Jabba had ENORMOUS holes in the rules. Lots of things weren't defined, or they were defined but then he changed his mind as soon as he had to actually apply them. Clearly he hadn't actually put any real effort into working on this debate method.

Secondly, it's clear that this all hinges on the existence of a whole infrastructure that will never actually be there. There needs to be a perfect jury, and perfect participants, and apparently a board of directors to choose those people. It makes this method useless for any kind of casual application, as you would need to have some organization dedicated to creating and scheduling these debates. Such an organization would have a huge strain on it however, since all these people would be working to get a debate going that - by Jabba's own admission - would be incredibly slow. So all that organizing, and years could go by with no real progress.

There's no clear way that this is superior to any other form of debate, so even if it had no downsides (and boy howdy does it!) it wouldn't be worth putting time into developing. It would need to have a clear advantage over other forms of debate.

Let's take a look at the rules, as I documented them based on Jabba's extremely disorganized and wordy website and his answers to questions here. Note that Jabba agreed that these rules were accurate, but my prediction is that he'll take it back and say he didn't mean that once I start picking them apart.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
JABBA'S ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE RULES:

1. The debate should be one on one, but in theory you could have different teams addressing different sub-topics.
I have no problem with this. It means this debate method is 100% inapplicable on a forum like this one, so he shouldn't ever suggest that we try to use it here, but as a rule I'm fine with debate being between two people.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
2. Both participants should pretend to respect both the other participant and that person's argument. They should stick to the guidelines and politely point out when the other person violates them, but the actual decision on if a rule has been violated is up to the jury.
I'm fine with people being generally civil but I don't really like the idea that I have to pretend to respect someone and their argument when it's nonsense. In a debate setting you DO have to explain WHY you think something is nonsense, but I don't feel like "you're not treating my idea with respect" is a valid complaint so long as I've given my reasons.

Having the jury decide if something is a violation has some issues, but I'll get to the jury stuff in a minute.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
3. The debate should start with one side providing a brief. The other side can give one too, or not. After this the two will alternate turns, each turn consisting of answering a question posed by their opponent and asking one themselves. If more than one question is asked you can specify which one is the priority, otherwise the other participant can pick which one to answer.
On the one hand, I the idea of answering one question at a time has some merit. On the other hand, artificially limiting it to one question in a written format is kinda silly. If I have several related questions, it's reasonable for me to ask them all at once and have them answered all at once. It's also clear that Jabba considers questions and comments as interchangeable which means unless you say "This is the question that I want you to answer, please specifically answer this one" he feels free to respond to some offhand comment you made rather than the one direct question.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
4. There is no time limit to how long someone can wait to answer a question. If they give an incomplete or incomprehensible answer it will hopefully be noted by the jury and the debate should continue.
This is, frankly, a garbage rule. You can stall as long as you want, and the other person is expected to just give up and move on. The jury notes it, but that doesn't change that you're not getting an answer. This rule alone completely kills the whole thing.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
5. Each side will track discussion and arguments in a sort of chart or "tree" (This may include 2 or more trees per person, as they track their own argument and that of the other person).
Since this debate method encourages asking lots of teeny questions all over the place and making incremental progress over a very long time it makes sense to document things, but you end up with a big document of mostly useless snippets because the whole thing goes fractal. This could only really help if you were forced to STICK with your sub-point until it was totally resolved (which is where I thought Jabba was going with this originally before he said you could just jump around). So yeah, the tree is pretty much worthless in practice.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
6. Participants can jump to a new 'branch' any time they want, and can even ask questions relevant to multiple branches in a single turn, but in theory should pick the one that seems like the biggest issue.
Like I said above, this one sounds fine without context but in this debate method it just means you have your 'tree' grow out of control and make a big mess.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
7. It's okay if not every branch gets addressed - if you find a fatal flaw early on you wouldn't need to also address the other branches.
This relies on the jury taking this into account, and agreeing with you that you've found a fatal flaw. I think this is the funniest one to me, because in other debates here (such as the immortality one) HUGE fatal flaws have been pointed out in Jabba's argument and even HE has agreed they're a problem but then he says he wants to change the subject. Granted, those threads aren't following this debate method but even so you'd think if he sees this as a good rule he would concede.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
8. The debate continues until both participants agree it's over or one of them quits (either due to believing their case has been made or because they feel the debate has broken down). At that point the jury decides the outcome.
Not sure what the plan would be if nobody ever quits. It seems Jabba is fine with this kind of debate taking years though.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
9. The participants are free to ignore the jury both on individual issues and the final ruling if they don't feel like it is sympathetic enough to their side, or if they don't feel that they have sufficient time to pay attention to it.
And there we have the real winner. Jabba says it's okay to just ignore the jury, thereby completely invalidating the whole debate. Oh, you're counting on the jury to decide if a rule has been violated? Too bad! Wait, they decide who won the debate? Joke's on you! The whole thing is a total sham. The debate can last indefinitely and then if it somehow miraculously ends the person that thinks they're on the losing end can just declare that the whole process is flawed and the jury is against them.

What a train wreck!
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:53 PM   #887
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It was obvious to me anyway why you responded to it. When Jabba gets stuck, he tries to be folksy and congenial to defuse criticism. In rhetorical terms this is called "currying favor," and in legal debate -- such as in an American civil trial -- it's generally forbidden.
It's a cheap trick, and he's just so bad at it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:55 PM   #888
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Give me a question that I've been avoiding.
That's off-topic in this thread. If you want to go back to a question you've been ignoring in the Immortality thread or the Shroud thread, go do it there.

Here we're busy talking about all the flaws we've found in your proposed debate method.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 06:06 PM   #889
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Jabba, what part of your debate method would you say was most clearly showcased here? Is there an element or process that you thought was especially well demonstrated in your debate with S0dner?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:24 PM   #890
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Are we all just ignoring the fact that the person who is the center of the universe is a member of this forum?! That's pretty cool. Suck it, Reddit.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:30 PM   #891
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,669
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Are we all just ignoring the fact that the person who is the center of the universe is a member of this forum?! That's pretty cool. Suck it, Reddit.
....and that, children, was when the religion of SOdhnerism was founded.

Now, who wants cookies?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:56 PM   #892
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
....and that, children, was when the religion of SOdhnerism was founded.

Now, who wants cookies?
Can you imagine being so incompetent at rational thought that you accidentally found a false religious due to your inability to refute it?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:08 PM   #893
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,892
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Give me a question that I've been avoiding.
You promised to review your performance in those debates on this website that have been run under your rules for effective debate (links were provided).
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:20 PM   #894
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,892
or

I can't stand it any more, I give in. I'll buy your bloody automatic cat bloody food bloody dispenser! Just shut up about the superiority of your debate method, please? I beg you....
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:22 PM   #895
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
....and that, children, was when the religion of SOdhnerism was founded.
Actually I briefly had a very sarcastic religion centered around me in high school so I suppose this would just be a continuation of Stevism. It never had a lot of followers, but there were times someone I didn't even know would yell "praise Steve" at me in the hall. The central tenant was that anything you didn't want to do was a sin and forbidden, so you could tell your teacher that doing homework was against your religion.

I know, I know. But I was a freshman. Cut me some slack.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:28 PM   #896
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,553
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Also -- back about 1969, I wrote a (unpublished) science Fiction story in which we found out that the universe is round (and that the earth is the only source of life in it).

That’s 20 points for item 23.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 12:09 AM   #897
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,892
I'm glad he said it was unpublished otherwise I'd be scouring ebay for a (no doubt) well thumbed copy on ebay
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 01:14 AM   #898
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. It means that public debate can't be effective when all the members of the audience are emotionally committed to the same side.

And this highlights the fundamental fatal flaw in your "Effective Debate" method; it assumes that every topic must have only two opposite and equal sides. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that. One of the reasons that S0dhner's chosen topic was perfect to demonstrate this flaw is that it is so wildly and obviously incorrect. All members of the audience would necessarily be rationally committed to the same side. And yet, even with that massive advantage, you still lost the debate.

That you chose the word "emotionally" rather than "rationally" further proves that you aren't interested in determining any objective truths with this method, but simply finding new converts.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 03:19 AM   #899
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,932
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Let's go back to the universe debate. I thought you quit the debate. I didn't mean to be the one quitting. I'd like to read your refutation and sources.
Mod WarningTo Jabba: No. Do not try to discuss anything in this thread bar what the title states. If you wish to engage in a discussion/debate/post about being the centre of the universe or anything else take it to a relevant thread.

To ensure you are 100% clear - this thread is about discussing your proposals on how "debates" in public should happen. Anything else is not the topic of the thread.

To others: The same notice, this is for discussing proposalss for how to conduct public debates nothing else. If you wish to challenge Jabba on other claims and topics take it to a relevant thread.

Ignoring this moderator warning will result in further moderation action which may include edits, warnings, suspensions and banning.
Posted By:Darat
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 05:17 AM   #900
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Also -- back about 1969, I wrote a (unpublished) science Fiction story in which we found out that the universe is round (and that the earth is the only source of life in it).
So what?

What does that have to do with your ideas about how debates should work?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 17th May 2018 at 06:43 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 08:58 AM   #901
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,540
Jabba, something has been bugging me about this: What's the end game? In other words, assuming everything works out precisely the way you have designed it, what is the desired result?

An example: Suppose I am engaging in a public disagreement with Jack, and we have set up our discussion to perfectly coincide with Actually Effective Written Debate™. Jack and I have assembled a completely impartial jury, we both follow the rules to the letter... everything. At the end of our discussion, the jury sides with Jack.

So... what now? I can't just change my beliefs like flipping a light switch. Should I behave as though my belief is wrong, even if I don't really change my mind? What if the disagreement was started when Jack told me to divorce my wife? Am I now under some obligation to alter my marital arrangement?

And what if Jill, an observer, thinks the jury got it wrong? What is she supposed to do? What if she's the wife?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 09:35 AM   #902
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
So... what now? I can't just change my beliefs like flipping a light switch. Should I behave as though my belief is wrong, even if I don't really change my mind?
That's going to be the same question with any debate method though, isn't it? Either you convince someone or you don't, and that's not always linked to "winning" the debate. If someone isn't convinced then regardless of whether or not you officially won nothing will change for them.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 09:38 AM   #903
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,191
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
So... what now?
Under his Rule nine you can completely disregard any effect of the debate whatsoever. Those are the rules for effective debate. You probably wanted the rules for effectual debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 09:46 AM   #904
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,540
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That's going to be the same question with any debate method though, isn't it? Either you convince someone or you don't, and that's not always linked to "winning" the debate. If someone isn't convinced then regardless of whether or not you officially won nothing will change for them.
Well sure, the purpose of the debate is to influence some kind of audience (which may or may not include one's interlocutor).

But then, why the special jury, and why the verdict?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 09:48 AM   #905
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
But then, why the special jury, and why the verdict?
Yeah, fair enough. Especially when he's so quick to discard it. It all comes back to this having all the faults of other methods and then some, and no special benefits.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 09:51 AM   #906
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,091
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
But then, why the special jury, and why the verdict?
Because in the end, Jabba fancies himself a budget Perry Mason, seeking to defeat all those pesky humanists. All of this is framed around trying to put ideas he disagrees with on trial, but stacking the deck in his favor.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 10:04 AM   #907
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,540
I'm getting the impression that deep down, Jabba wants to be on the receiving end of a slow clap. Just once.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 10:05 AM   #908
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,097
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Jabba, something has been bugging me about this: What's the end game? In other words, assuming everything works out precisely the way you have designed it, what is the desired result?
Again Jabba's been very clear about that. The end game is not the end of a discussion, it's Jabba getting enough material to create a "roadmap" of the discussion were he wins.

The end game (in Jabba's head) is a brilliantly written passion play where the lone iconoclast Yojimbo's into the skeptic town and faces off with them at high noon, his expertly crafted debate method picking them off one by one.

Again it's scary how much all of this makes perfect sense in that context. Jabba's dismissing everything said to him that he can't twist into an agreement because he's just a director leaving scenes that don't work on the cutting room floor. Fringe resets? New day of filming. A new Least Critical Poster every week or so? Actor tryouts.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 10:13 AM   #909
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,097
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Because in the end, Jabba fancies himself a budget Perry Mason, seeking to defeat all those pesky humanists. All of this is framed around trying to put ideas he disagrees with on trial, but stacking the deck in his favor.
I'm reminded more of Sherlock Holmes. The whole "Sherlock Scan" off the cuff masterful deduction thing is neat and all and has made Sherlock rightfully one of the most entertaining characters in fiction but Sherlock Holmes can only exist in a world where the author can control both the character and the character's reality.

The real world is not that precise and predictable. You can't make a 2 second glance at the streak of dirt on the suspect's pants cuff and go "Ah you were on the East Docks at low tide on a full moon because that color of dirt is caused by a specific bacteria that only grows in damp conditions under a full moon..."

It's why you never meet a "Chessmaster" character in real life. Because in real life you can't just set your fiendishly overly complicated plan into action and watch it play out. In the real world the Joker would have set up his complicated plan, got himself arrested and then watched impotently as his plan fell to pieces as soon as the first henchmen got stuck in traffic for an extra five minutes.

Jabba wants to be this precise and clever but this is the real world and unlike the movies where "clever" is practically a super-power in the real world it's pretty much the least useful form of intelligence to have.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 10:22 AM   #910
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,710
It would be hard to have a chessmaster-like master plan when you don't even keep organized notes on your pet topic.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 01:12 PM   #911
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,303
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
And this highlights the fundamental fatal flaw in your "Effective Debate" method; it assumes that every topic must have only two opposite and equal sides. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that. One of the reasons that S0dhner's chosen topic was perfect to demonstrate this flaw is that it is so wildly and obviously incorrect. All members of the audience would necessarily be rationally committed to the same side. And yet, even with that massive advantage, you still lost the debate.

That you chose the word "emotionally" rather than "rationally" further proves that you aren't interested in determining any objective truths with this method, but simply finding newsome converts.
Minor correction
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 01:30 PM   #912
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,191
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Clearly he hadn't actually put any real effort into working on this debate method.
Agreed. And the mock debate here was not even the first instance of the method tentatively being applied at ISF. Elon Musk's first rockets didn't fly very well. But by trying to make them fly, watching them fail, and going back to fix things that caused those failures, he now has a rocket that by all accounts flies very well. That's what I think of when I think of "working on" something.

Quote:
It would need to have a clear advantage over other forms of debate.
I don't see where Jabba has any experience with or knowledge of other forms of debate. I mentioned several other forms, trying to generate a helpful comparative discussion. They're all tailored toward different environments and different goals, but if you're purporting to improve on any of them you have to be able to speak meaningfully about their relative successes and failures. Or give some evidence that you know they exist.

Quote:
...as a rule I'm fine with debate being between two people.
Lincoln's debates with Douglas were one-on-one, but covered topics upon which there was already great public debate among many parties expressing many nuances of opinion on them. Those one-on-one debates helped Lincoln get to the Capitol, and to a lesser extent to galvanize public opinion, but the actual problems they debated were solved by the larger debate.

Quote:
I don't feel like "you're not treating my idea with respect" is a valid complaint so long as I've given my reasons.
Not all ideas merit respect. In a debate setting, if your line of reasoning is heard and examined rationally, that's all you can expect. Generally those who propose to win a debate by foisting ground rules will argue for open-mindedness and charity. Open-mindedness means listening to any argument that's presented and not prejudicially rejecting it. It doesn't preclude judiciously rejecting it if it is in error. Same goes with "friendly" over merely civil. There is no need to be obsequiously sweet when the whole point of the exercise is adversarial. Unfortunately this is a big one with Jabba. No matter how rude he has been in debate -- list posted a few weeks ago -- he demands that everyone be more than merely civil and cordial to him. This, more than many other rules, is meant to provide an excuse for ignoring uncomfortable points.

Quote:
If I have several related questions, it's reasonable for me to ask them all at once and have them answered all at once.
That's how interrogatories work in a U.S. civil case. That was one of the example systems Jabba mentioned, but he hasn't demonstrated he knows how one actually proceeds -- specifically how the briefing period goes before a trial, if any, is actually held.

The real problem with the rules of order in his system is that there's just no basis ever to expect an answer to any question. Most other systems are made to compel an answer because it stands to reason in a debate that each party will be asked questions it would rather not answer if an honest answer weakens their case. And as you note, it completely undermines the notion of a line of questioning -- one question leads to another, and another, and so on until the rebuttal is fully penned in.

Imagine voir dire for an expert: "Are you licensed to practice medicine in the state of New York?" "Hm, let me tell you about an unpublished science fiction story I wrote." Anything remotely falling under the name "effective" really needs an immediate yes-or-no answer to that question before the debate can continue.

Quote:
...you have your 'tree' grow out of control and make a big mess.
And his "trees" and "maps" are big messes. Inventions like hypertext help us organize information hierarchically. That would lend itself to representing a fractally reduced argument. But it wouldn't work very well when you wanted to interleave points and counterpoints. The written product of must debates in other systems is organized chronologically and categorically, with one the primary and the other the secondary. I would have expected Jabba to talk about such things as court dockets. Within each docket entry, say for a brief to support a pretrial motion, you have a hierarchical organization of the arguments presented. Amicus curiae briefs are good at this.

ISF is obviously a chronological accumulator. It seems to work okay. It works better than any of Jabba's attempts to "map" the debates he engages in. Those just end up as incomprehensible mashups.

Quote:
...the person that thinks they're on the losing end can just declare that the whole process is flawed and the jury is against them.
This is exactly what Jabba has done in every one of his debates, even the ones that happened outside ISF. He has clearly lost, and in some cases even conceded that he lost. But he maintains that while he lost the debate, his proposition is still true and the debate was lost only because of some failure of the system in which the debate occurred.

Every workable system of manageable litigation has referees who have real teeth. A court has a judge. A committee has a chair. A baseball game has an umpire. These roles are separate from the trier of fact. The judge presides over the trial and enforces the rules of effective debate, but a completely separate body is almost always empaneled to ascertain who won the debate. The umpire doesn't decide at the end of the baseball game who won; he just makes sure the game is played by the rules.

Jabba places ultimate faith in his "jury" to plug all the glaring holes in his method, but then allows either party just to ignore them. This isn't even a consistent system, much less an effective one.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 02:02 PM   #913
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
It would be hard to have a chessmaster-like master plan when you don't even keep organized notes on your pet topic.
I'll have you know that I studied chess for a while back in the sixties. Never got around to playing a game, because of the Vietnam war. I didn't get drafted or anything like that, but you know. Wars are scary! But I'm a chess expert.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 12:08 PM   #914
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,892
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Sometimes, the dog returneth not to his vomit
I was wrong
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.