Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aburo

  1. I know cross-x.com has changed recently to a slightly different format, and I need a little bit of time to adjust to it in order to continue moderating it properly as I have done in the past. So just bear with me. Also, I've been moderating this forum for several years now, and although I don't mind continuing to do this, I have been having less and less time recently due to my college workload to do the usual forum upkeep. The vdebate wiki is now gone, since the project has been abandoned for so long, but I'm sure the cross-x.com community would be interested in some new ideas for this forum. If anyone is interested in being a new moderator for this forum, let me know. I'm not sure when the next time cross-x.com elections are going to be, but I'm planning to step down pretty soon and let someone else take over.
  2. I hope you don't mind that I changed the number of this round. There was some confusion in the round numbering, and Round 390 was skipped in the process. I figured this would be a much easier fix than having to go back and edit the round names of five other rounds.
  3. I kind of agree with this. That question is usually pretty useless, since the answer is pretty much "duh."
  4. The answer to that question seems pretty obvious, so I believe it's really only asked for dramatic effect. I'll explain what I mean by this in simple terms. Generally that question is asked by teams running kritiks of representations and discourse as well as by performance teams in order to help them win the framework debate. They may say that since fiat is "illusory," the world the other team imagines as a result of a certain plan is in itself a creation based on the justifications for the plan (which they will probably claim are nefarious and wrong to begin with). Then they will attempt to extrapolate this point to say that the kritik is a prerequisite to the plan. However, just because fiat is illusory doesn't mean the other team automatically loses the framework debate. If the debate is still centered around whether or not the plan is advantageous, the fact that its perceived benefits are illusory doesn't in any way mean you cannot weigh them against the (real or illusory) impacts of the kritik.
  5. PatriotPolicy13, are you actually planning to write the next speech even though it has taken this long, or should I still label the round as "dead?"
  6. Several minutes ago there were three threads in this forum titled "Round 372." I'm not sure about whether this was done on purpose, but I changed the numbering of the other two threads.
  7. I changed it back, so the round is still alive. If there is a delay that's way over two weeks, I generally declare the round dead.
  8. Bump. It has been over two weeks since the last post. Are you planning to post the next speech soon, or is this round dead?
  9. While you're right that computers are good at the "A to B to C" kind of logic, debate has a lot more to do with human-to-human communication in general than simply with logos. Obviously a computer can understand simple logical patterns, but it's how that logic is communicated to a judge that wins a debate. The intricacies of language are so difficult for computers that it took IBM five years to develop a computer that could give several-word answers on Jeopardy (not to say that Watson wasn't impressive). How do you expect a computer to answer cross-examination questions or understand answers? But since Deep Blue has evolved into Watson, this "Deep Blue for debate" might be the next step after all because of all the challenges it poses. Also, I somewhat doubt your program as it is now can truly understand the language used in the modern media. As I said earlier, it doesn't seem to be very good at making complete sentences yet or actually recognizing the best parts of a card. Nonetheless, I think it's a really interesting project, Ryan.
  10. Hey, it looks like BOSDICK has removed all the insulting posts from this thread. Sorry about the delayed response on this. I didn't have computer access for several days. But if anything else comes up, let me know.
  11. Bump. It has been over two weeks since the last speech was posted. Are you planning to finish the round?
  12. Bump. Can I get an update on the tournament? It started over a month ago, and we've still only seen the first round. EDIT: I guess this project was a failure once again. I guess the long time span of virtual debates means they often don't end, which makes a virtual debate tournament fairly difficult to run. But I hope to see one finally work out one of these days.
  13. Bump. I'm just making sure that you still want to finish the round. It has been two weeks since the last speech was posted.
  14. Yeah, I got a message from mdawgig a few days ago about how there was a hold up but that things should be ready to go for the second round pretty soon.
  • Create New...