I View Debates Differently

I feel it is academically dishonest when someone uses an argument, that they have used before, and it has been thoroughly demonstrated that it is invalid or unsound, either in a previous debate or in writings elsewhere directed to them, without rebutting the objections. This goes double for opening remarks that commit logical fallacies without revising it for future debates. This is my version of Godwin's Law, anyone who does this, automatically loses.

I don't like the idea of judging someone's performance by how much is left unanswered. Imagine if the debate was on paper, person A has 5 arguments in support of their position, person B rests on the burden of proof, and each person gave the other person a copy of their opening for the rebuttal phase. During the rebuttal phase, person B points out every flaw in 3 out of 5 of the arguments, leaving the top half of the paper filled with red ink and only due to time constraints is unable to correct the remaining fallacious points. It seems like a silly way of determining who won by asking "who had more points in their favor at the end?" Even if none of them are valid, and have been discounted a countless number of times before. If people are penalized more for what their mistakes, then they would be more careful in their own fact checking, but this seems to be less important than delivering a point with confidence. Perhaps this is part of the skills of debating, but I find it to a useless rubric if you actually want to enlarge the body of knowledge.

It always takes twice as much time to rebut an assertion as to make one, so the fact that both parties have equal time all but entails the affirmative position will always win on any technical measure.

If you're argument is invalid, and that can be pointed out by anyone of reasonable intellect, I don't care if the opponent didn't address every single point, I'm not going to think your position is justified. Maybe you won by debating standards, but I would just as well say that you won by default, you won by your opponent's ineptitude, a result similar when an insane person debates a mute and the audience has no thinking capacity.

This is why I dislike debates and prefer discussion formats more. It enables the opponent to stop the person as soon as they make a factually incorrect claim, instead of letting them continue on for fifteen minutes leaving that point either lost in the wind or having the opponent spend time summarizing the point so people know which point his is addressing. It also enables more engagement between the two speakers and makes then be prepared for more than just their talking points, in other words, it puts a leash on the speakers so that they can't ramble off into the sunset. Debates are valuable for showmanship, not intellectual discussion.

Taken from here:

I’ve listened to Craig many times. Since I know a lot more about Cosmology than he does, he just sounds idiotic on that point. Luke, are you a debate judge? Do you score it?

I’m interested in what other people have to say about this. If an atheist fails to respond to an incorrect statement, is that a point to the theist? It seems like other people do this, but I don’t. After all, it’s not like we need to view the debate with the comprehension of a five year old.