Discussing Ongoing Debates in the Comment Section

I'm just going to record the conversation I had with NZlockie in this debate
I'm big on historical accuracy, so I'm just going to say this now. Germany dissolved its non agression pact with poland months before the invasion. Technically westerplatte didn't belong to Poland, but a league of nations mandate known as the "Free City of Danzig", roughly the size of modern day Connecticut. The Danzig Nazi Party took control of the legislature and dissolved its independence, which by modern UN standards, made Danzig legally part of Germany.

Poland sent in a militia of 80 men to protect it from an actual occupation. The Nazi Ships stationed in the local harbor fired on the garrison.
In all fairness, Westerplatte coincided with several other offensives, the first being the "Battle of the Border". To prove Westerplatte was most important in a historical sense, you would need to prove that the Battle of the Border was a domino off of Westerplatte.

I'm big on fair debates, so I'm just going to say this now. Csareo you need to stop giving feedback/advice/information in the comment sections of debates you're not competing in.

I wish wrichriw were here. He explains it better than I can. Commentary on debate's shouldn't be limited or restricted. Nothing said here is indicative of what's being said in the debate. If I give away an argument to either side, they are free to use it. Just as they are free to use any other reference or information on the internet to research their topic.

Saying debate's shouldn't be discussed, is asking whether or not debates need to even happen in the first place. Understanding the topic and reaching legitimate conclusions is the reason debates even exist. I just don't get why what I say must be censored, because one side could actually learn something from it and apply it?

Can't remember the philosophical theorem this is called, but anything that can be an advantage to one side is an advantage to the other. If you think what I say puts a debater at a disadvantage, that's not my fault, but the mindset of the debater in question.

I feel strongly about what I said. Saying something in the comments isn't putting a debater at a disadvantage/advantage. I can only talk about what has been said anyways, so if I point out something in the comments that is wrong, and the other guy chooses to refute that in the next round, the debate suddenly doesn't become unfair. It's just that I put the truth, or my beliefs on what's true in a place that both debaters can easily find.

If they want to ignore what is said, that's fine. If they want to use what I say to their advantage, then that's up to them. But things shouldn't be censored in the comment section, regardless of how the debaters choose to use what's given to them.

Blackflag: I think it's rude. Some people just like to spout information, rightly or wrongly, just because they like to feel like they know what they're talking about. If you're talking about what people should say (in your ever-humble opinion) , who are you to know if they were choosing to bring that up later? You have said in previous comments that someone's only hope is to talk about this or that, that's not your call and it just sounds patronizing. I don't think you're in a position to patronize someone who's win ratio is 80%.

Blackflag: There is absolutely no question here.
Comments that may influence either debaters argument should be reserved until AFTER the debate.

This is competitive debate. In what world is it OK for non participants to give arguments or rebuttals to the competitors? Especially when those non participants are going to be invited to judge afterwards?
If comrade Stalin were to pick this argument up and I were to refute it in round, would Csareo then rebut it in the comments? Who am I really debating here?
And if Csareo were then to judge this debate, could I assume that his judgement is based solely on Stalin's case? Or would it be safe to assume that since Stalin's case is Csareo's case, that he is effectively voting for himself?

All of these questions are removed if these comments are held until after judging. And yet doing so, has exactly zero impact on whatever educational value you're attributing to them.

I'm continuing my other two posts here... So if I were to make a forum regarding the Most Important Battle of WW2, would it be acceptable for debaters to look there rather than here? If what I'm saying is true, then I'm putting the information in an accessible place. If the information isn't good, then no one has to use it. I'm not favoring one side, and if I were, that would be more understandable.

Any advantage you feel I may be giving to one side, is a hidden opportunity to the other. If I refute an incorrect comment on the breaking of a non existent "non-aggression" pact, that still has no impact on the debate, and that still must be refuted by the other debater. So I'm not sure what kind of edge you think I've given STALIN, but if anything, it was a strong indication that you will need to defend that argument next round.

I simply can't fathom why you would be opposed to me stating facts that a debater may actually decide to use. If something incorrect is said, like any good debater, it would be fact checked. The truth is just closer, and in debate, the idea is to reach a common truth. If you feel truth must be kept private so one side can win, based on the other side not having proper information, then there is an integrity gap.

Why do you think it's unfair for me to give correct information here, when at the same time you could possibly get away with an incorrect argument? IMHO, the integrity of the debate is more at stake when one side wins based on fallacious, but un-refuted evidence.

This is competitive debate. In what world is it OK for non participants to give arguments or rebuttals to the competitors? Especially when those non participants are going to be invited to judge afterwards?
By the same logic, researching and getting information from any source should be out of the question.

If comrade Stalin were to pick this argument up and I were to refute it in round, would Csareo then rebut it in the comments? Who am I really debating here?
You are debating Stalin. Nothing I say changes that. Stalin can use what I say, and you can get upset about it. Or Stalin can use what I say, and you also use what I say to refute it.

And if Csareo were then to judge this debate, could I assume that his judgement is based solely on Stalin's case? Or would it be safe to assume that since Stalin's case is Csareo's case, that he is effectively voting for himself?

I only affirm what is said in the debate. My opinions exist whether or not I'm vocal about them. If STALIN use's arguments based on opinions I might hold, then he must find them convincing enough to warrant their use. I'm open minded. My views on debates, especially one's I'm not particularly interested in (like this one), are constantly evolving.

Blackflag: Maybe you should just focus on finishing your debates.

I feel the only problem with my actions, was the fact that I refrenced the debate and not the information. I said "NZlockie is wrong about the Non-Aggression Pact" where I should of said "I'm pretty sure there wasn't a Non-Aggression Pact in play during the Invasion of Poland".

Besides that, I'm firmly of the opinion that things said in debates shouldn't be censored or shunned. Nothing said in the comments should affect what is said in the debate.

sea_shell: Passive Aggressiveness doesn't fly well with me, but you're right, it's rude that I accepted all these debates I have trouble finishing. I'm ashamed, but thanks for reminding me.

Blackflag: I wasn't passive aggressive, I was quite direct. I think your comment was using sarcasm, which is typical passive aggressive behaviour.

sea_shell: Whatever the case, the point was well received. The "aggressiveness" came from the perception that the post didn't have relevance.
I mean, what does that have to do with anything?

Look, I didn't want to get into this now but since your forcing it...

When I debate, I take it very strategically.
In that debate we only have three rounds and the first was only for constructive. If, HYPOTHETICALLY, I wanted to lay a trap, my opponent might spot what he THINKS is a flaw and spend his next round arguing that. I'm OK with this because I already have a rebuttal for it and now he's wasted a round.

You pointing these traps out from the sidelines is not fair on him or me. Either way the slighted party is going to feel bad. Especially when you have no stake in this debate!
It's like you standing behind me at the poker table and telling the other guy to fold.

And as I said, there is NO benefit!

nzlockie: When I debate, I take it very strategically.
In that debate we only have three rounds and the first was only for constructive. If, HYPOTHETICALLY, I wanted to lay a trap, my opponent might spot what he THINKS is a flaw and spend his next round arguing that. I'm OK with this because I already have a rebuttal for it and now he's wasted a round.
So you say things that are false so you can catch your opponent in a trap about being false? I'm confused, and I think this dilutes the true purpose of the debate. Debating is done when two sides want to prove something is either right or wrong, better or worse, ect. Catching opponents in credibility gaps does nothing to actually advance the BOP, except make what is said harder to believe.

And as I said, there is NO benefit!
It preserves the integrity of the debate, by putting truthful information at the disposal of both debaters. Debate isn't poker. If you are confident your resolution is true, then you should be able to prove it, without having to play "Stag Hunt"

Blackflag: It has to do with the fact that you spend a whole lot of time commenting on these debates, even though admin and nzlockie have asked you not to.
I was directly saying that you could spend that time actually doing your debates, rather than accepting multiple debates and not finishing them.
Both actions, putting in your two cents when it's not wanted in debate comments and habitually not finishing debates, are rude.

sea_shell: It has to do with the fact that you spend a whole lot of time commenting on these debates, even though admin and nzlockie have asked you not to.
This thread is for the purpose of proving why it shouldn't be restricted. You have no right to tell me I can't try and get my point across.

Both actions, putting in your two cents when it's not wanted in debate comments and habitually not finishing debates, are rude.
If my "two cents" isn't wanted, then it is ignored. If it is ignored, it might as well not even exist. So what's the problem again?

I am not ignoring what you guy's are saying. I'm actually taking it very seriously. The problem is that I'm not convinced by what's being said, and I feel a lot of it might have to do with stubbornness. I'm not sure, and I don't want to judge anyone. I'm just having trouble believing you guy's are as passionate on the topic as I am, or this is a case of who will back down first. I really am trying to prove a legitimate point here.

Blackflag: Then ignore my two cents... stop being hypocritical. First you tell me I'm being passive aggressive when you're the one showing passive aggression, then tell me not to put my two cents in and tell me i have no right to speak. The relevance is there, regardless of whether you see it or not.

If you want my problem with it again, reread my comments, that's the beauty of it being written down.

Blackflag: Wrong. In almost 75% of the debates ive accepted on this site, I'm arguing the side I DONT believe.
I'm usually not confident my resolution is true at all. That's not the point. The point is that I'm confident I can still present a better case than my opponent.

And no, I don't usually submit information that is untrue. I put information that distracts from my actual point and tricks my opponent into wasting his characters arguing something that is irrelevant or easily defeated. It's a tactic I learned pretty early on from admin.

I'm glad my cheap debating tricks have been useful to people.

My personal view - though this is by no means an edeb8 rule - is that it's ok for others to help debaters out (I see this as a normal part of people helping each other improve and such - this is particularly true for coaches), but I'd put two conditions on that. First, I'd try to refrain from doing it during a debate that I might also be judging. I think that would be a little unprofessional and definitely disrespectful to the cases of the debaters. And second, I wouldn't do it if the one or more debaters have asked for it not to be done. That's basic courtesy.

admin: Very well. Seems to fly in the face of several "debate etiquette" docs I found but I'll concede I don't have the weight of experience here. Since I was obviously in the wrong here, I apologise to Csareo.

I'm officially requesting that no user give me this kind of help in any debate I'm involved with.

Call it foolish pride but I prefer to win or lose by myself. I welcome your ideas and opinions after the fact but not before or during.

I also think, although this is only my opinion, that common courtesy would also mean that in this context, audience members and potential judges should wait to be asked before offering their insights. I doubt I'm the only person who wants to own the credit for his decisions, right or wrong, not to mention the fact that if someone keeps telling me what to do, I'm never going to learn to do it myself.

Sorry again for any agro.