Buddhism- A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing?

•October 6, 2012 • Leave a Comment

This is only one example of one Buddhist. I am not going to make the mistake of generalizing in the sense of  “this is what all Buddhists believe”, but I think what this particular Buddhist believes is fairly ridiculous, and is plausibly what happens when you take one of Buddhism’s “noble truths”, that is, “seek to end suffering”, to its fullest extent. This is what they said:

“A dying person can suffer horribly from wishing to survive.

My sister’s a nurse and once described an 80-something year old man screaming in terror while he was dying.  Had he lived (which includes the dying process) with greater mindfulness, and less clinginess, he might have
had some dignity and peace in his last minutes; he might have had a less ugly impact on the others around him. ”

Even someone who is not entirely skilled in critical thinking may take offense to that statement. I am  usually never offended, and I don’t understand why people generally get offended over minor things, but I can at least understand why people would be offended by that statement. The reason they would be offended is because it is placing a highly unrealistic expectation on a dying person. They may have had some experience with a dying person; perhaps a family member. If so, then this statement  would, very probably, turn them to anger.

This is an incredibly useless thing to say. First of all, who, aside from someone who is overly concerned  (need I bring up “mindfulness”) about how others behave, would say this? Secondly, how on Earth can you expect a dying person to be thinking in any sort of manner that is to your desire – and yes I say  “desire”? That is nothing more than incredibly arrogant, and should be dismissed as incredible arrogance. Thirdly, would not the same apply to those who would possibly be annoyed by his presence? Wouldn’t they  likewise have to be “mindful”?

If this is the extent to which Buddhism is largely carried out (and I doubt all Buddhists  believe what this person believes), then I will have nothing to do with it. This is the problem I have: that all suffering, major or minor, is considered equally bad and should  be weeded out, regardless of how harmful it actually is. There is another example of something this person has said that is in my opinion equally despicable (depending on whether or not someone expects others to believe it too),  and it involves the nullification of curiosity itself:

“But talking about Buddhism in a very general way cannot but come across as vague. And the point of it’s practice, in my understanding of it,  is not to establish how the physical world is. In Zen at least, agnosticism is emphasized regarding that. “Don’t know mind” is preferred to  a mind filled with opinions. The aim, after all, is freedom from bother with obsessing over this, that and the other thing. That’s “busy mind”.  Life’s simpler to live and so contentment’s simpler to  achieve when we don’t busybody over the artificial distinctions of what the  bits-and-pieces of the world are. ”

Yet another ridiculous statement. According to this paradigm, having a mind filled with opinions is equally as bad as, say, suffering  while starving to death. One should not have any opinions whatsoever and simply be content; because then the world would be a better place, as no one is thinking critically about anything. Under this view, we would have, and should have, never investigated any cures for diseases.  We should have never done any science whatsoever, stayed in the caves, never even used fire itself. Why should we use fire? After all,  the desire to be “warm” only brings more suffering. One should not care about whether or not one is “warm”.

Again, I am not saying this is what all Buddhists believe, but I sincerely hope they do not and this was only one example of one particular Buddhist.  I had never expected such words to come from a Buddhist, but it turns out it is completely plausible just like with members of any other religion. For  the sake of “anonimity” I will not be posting a link to the forum where I argued with this Buddhist.
EDIT: Said poster has recently responded to my objection regarding curiosity. It reads thusly:

“Neither could I. I guess I failed miserably in conveying what I had intended. Zazen is nothing other than an investigation of nature and how it works – as opposed to collecting mere descriptions about it. The point of “don’t know mind” is to get a headful of opinion out of the way for a more objective inquiry into nature (“nature” understood in a Buddhist way. That is, an understanding that fabricates no divide between “in here” and “out there”… one of those
“artificial distinctions” – aka, delusions – of western thought). ”

 
Of course they are artificial distinctions, but we as human beings cannot really think in any other manner, due to our categorical thinking, so it is not unsurprising nor necessarily undesirable to do so especially when such distinctions can be useful and aid in understanding nature’s various processes. This is another example of placing unrealistic expectations on human behavior.

•August 20, 2012 • Leave a Comment

Dishonorable Disclosures

•August 18, 2012 • Leave a Comment

Critical thinking is equally important in the political realm as it is elsewhere. A recent video by “OPSEC” has been put up called Dishonerable Disclosures. In it they make the argument that president Obama posed a security risk through the early announcement of Osama Bin Laden’s death, by compromising whatever intel that was collected in the raid which took place on the Bin Laden compound. Here is the video:


There are some problems with the video. At around 6:33, Ben Smith says “President Obama, you did not kill Osama Bin Laden”. They are attempting to give the impression that Obama took credit for Bin Laden’s death, when in reality all Obama said was that he directed the mission. This is not the same as saying that one is taking credit for killing Bin Laden and the makers of the video were wrong to assume so. Even worse, this is not at all controversial, given that the president in the U.S. holds the title of “commander in chief”. The second problem is, when “Simon” appears, his face is not completely darkened and his face is still visible, which in itself constitutes a breach in anonymity which the makers of the video were attempting to provide. Thirdly, near the end of the video you can slightly hear Simon’s voice regardless of the voice mask. About the only thing I agree with in the video is that it was not very wise for Obama to announce the death so early. However the point could have been made in a more efficient manner than this video.

Logical Fallacies

•August 14, 2012 • Leave a Comment

Logical Fallacies everyone should know:

 

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form without requiring an understanding of the argument’s content. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. In order for a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:

Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument’s content.

  • Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).
  • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
  • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
  • Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
  • Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
  • (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
  • Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
  • Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
  • Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
  • Correlative-based fallacies
  • Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
  • Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.
  • Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
  • Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole
  • Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
  • False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
  • If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
  • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.
  • Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event’s taking place.
  • Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
  • False attribution– an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
    • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.
  • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct
  • Gambler’s fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is “due to land on tails” is incorrect.
  • Historian’s fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[30] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
  • Homunculus fallacy – where a “middle-man” is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
  • Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
  • Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
  • Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
  • Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
  • Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
  • Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
  • Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
  • Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
  • Petitio principii – see begging the question
  • Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for “after this, therefore because of this” (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y[33]
  • Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
  • Prosecutor’s fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
  • Psychologist’s fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
  • Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
  • Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
  • Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
  • Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
  • Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them.
  • Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
  • Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

  • Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.
    • No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
  • Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
  • False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
  • Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
  • Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
  • Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.[42]
  • Pathetic fallacy – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.
  • Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

  • Ad hominem– attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says
    • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
  • Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position
  • Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so
  • Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
  • Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same
  • Appeal to authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
  • Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion
  • Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
    • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
    • Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
    • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents
    • Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
    • Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people’s bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
    • Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
  • Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer
  • Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
  • Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
  • Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
  • Appeal to nature – wherein judgement is based solely on whether the subject of judgement is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’. For example (hypothetical): “Cannabis is healthy because it is natural”
  • Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).(Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer’s financial situation.)
  • Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
  • Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held[citation needed]
  • Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
  • Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient’s judgment
  • Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin’s law)
  • Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position
  • Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data
  • Tu quoque (“you too”, appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
  • Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.

Conditional or questionable fallacies

  • Black swan blindness – the argument that ignores low probability, high impact events, thus down playing the role of chance and under-representing known risks
  • Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.
  • Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
  • Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term “good” in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature)[citation needed]
  • Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel’s nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact

Rachmaninoff Symphony No. 2

•August 12, 2012 • Leave a Comment

From Wikipedia:

Symphony No. 2 in E minor, Op. 27 is a symphony by the Russian composer Sergei Rachmaninoff, written in 1906–07. The premiere was conducted by the composer himself in St. Petersburg on 8 February 1908. Its duration is approximately 60 minutes when performed uncut; cut performances can be as short as 35 minutes. The score is dedicated to Sergei Taneyev, a Russian composer, teacher, theorist, author, and pupil of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.”

Ridicule Is Not The Most Effective Weapon – Opinion

•August 12, 2012 • 2 Comments

The often repeated phrase by Thomas Jefferson “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”, is, in my opinion, false. As cherished as such a belief is to many self-proclaimed rationalists, I believe it is, in reality, an entirely irrational response to an entirely irrational claim, or belief. Even the famous Christopher Hitchens has used it,  and stood steadfastly by it. Many atheists and freethinkers are and remain unopposed to the very idea of ridicule.  However, these are my issues with it:

 

1. Often, what is considered to be “unintelligible” is subjective. Theists consider atheism to be unintelligible,  thus, they ridicule atheism for its apparent “absurdity” to their faith. My only claim is that there is a degree of subjectivity in the concept of “unintelligibility”.  I would think it would be difficult to argue against that  fairly innocuous, and not so controversial claim. Jefferson himself even owned slaves and considered blacks to be inferior.  I would say that further strengthens my first claim.

 
2. There are many atheists who ridicule without providing any logical reasons whatsoever. Instead, they provide emotional reasons. For instance “I suffered for x reason, god didn’t prevent it, therefore theism is stupid”. I do not see how that follows in a logical fashion. One may argue that in the case of a omnibenevolent god,  that god would have prevented suffering given the quality of omnibenevolence, and a very strong case can be made for that claim (and, without any ridicule whatsoever!). But that doesn’t mean that every possible god is necessarily benevolent, thus
this type of atheist makes the mistake of assuming so.

 
3. There are many socio-psychological factors involved in religious belief, that are not simply reducible  to a “lack of intelligence”. Any analysis of religious belief of being due to a “lack of intelligence” is  either entirely false, or woefully incomplete. Such socio-psychological factors include social pressure,  conformity (see Asch experiment), obedience (see Milgram experiment), adherence to some “greater good”,  which many atheists would even be willing to sacrifice themselves for, and the intense “spiritual” comfort which religion provides, which according to many religious people cannot be provided elsewhere. Given those factors which  are far more relevant, I would think that ridiculing religious belief for being “stupid” or “idiotic” would not be  entirely effective, and extremely simplistic. Religion is a powerful social structure which has evolved  over thousands of years. It is time we recognize these facts instead of merely assuming that  everyone who is religious, is therefore an idiot of some description, and would be swayed by mere ridicule.

 
4. Ridicule provides emotional comfort on behalf of those who engage in ridicule. It is, essentially, a form of  mental masturbation and manipulation. It may not necessarily imply that whoever believes in x, must believe in y, or else they are an idiot and there is absolutely no hope for them, but given that many theists first conception of an atheist is “angry” or “cynical”, ridicule only reinforces that stereotype, and gives the impression that atheists are 1. pretentious and 2. manipulative.

 

5. There are no statistics whatsoever. It would probably be very difficult to even get statistics on this issue. But, whenever there is a claim that one method of doing something is more effective than another method of doing something, on the sociological scale, I would think that statistics would be a very important factor in supporting that claim. Nevertheless, there are still no statistics.

 
Now, I don’t think there is any way I can stop people from ridiculing religious people if they want to. These  are simply the reasons why I have come to a disagreement with the concept, and I think they are good reasons.  If you disagree please share your opinion in a logical and rational manner. A completely relevant video:

Debate Proposal: Are Thunderf00t’s Actions Justified?

•August 11, 2012 • Leave a Comment

If anyone is interested I was wondering if people would like to engage in a civil debate (no ad homs, character assassinations, etc) regarding Thunderf00t’s recent actions. I will personally moderate the debate, and edit individual posts according to the level of civility displayed. We will agree to the structure of the debate beforehand. The writing must be formal and presented in a logical fashion. In other words, not like Thunderf00t’s blog! 😀

P.S. If you feel that your core argument has been edited in any way (I promise I won’t edit the argument itself!), screen capture your argument prior to the debate for evidence.
Prior to the debate, recommended reading:

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Some suggested debate formats from the Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board:

Suggestions for Debate Formats

To add some variety to formal debates, I’m offering some suggestions for debate formats that some of you may like instead of the traditional way it’s been done. This is by no means a complete list of ideas:

– Standard format

Each round consists of two statements. One affirming and the other responding. The final round may be in the form of a summary or concluding statement (not introducing new material).

– Double Affirmant Debate

Similar to the standard format, but each debater takes turns affirming a position with the other debater rebutting. For example, two participants agree to debate the age of the earth for 7 rounds. For the first three rounds, the creationist goes first, attempting to present positive evidence for a young earth, while the evolutionist responds in the negative, attempting to rebut the YEC’s arguments. For the next three rounds, the evolutionist takes the positive position, presenting arguments for an old earth with the YEC attempting to rebut his/her claims each round. The seventh round will consist of the concluding statements from each debater.

– Three Way Discussion

Each rounds consists of all three proponents arguing for their position and comparing and contrasting their viewpoints with the others (i.e. 3 statements per round). For example, 3 different theistic proponents argue their positions on YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution.

– Interrogative debate/discussion

This is similar to the ‘Double Affirmant’ debate, but instead of taking a ‘claim vs. rebuttal’ style, the person going first asks questions, in point form, and the person responding must attempt to answer them all. The debaters do this for a number of rounds and switch as questioner and answerer for an equal number of rounds. A concluding round allows the debaters to sum up their views.

– Concurrent debate

A concurrent debate is just like a standard debate, except that the statements for each round are revealed to the forum at the same time. A debate participant’s post will remain invisible until his or her opponent submits his or her post in the same round.

– Role Reversal debate

This debate is somewhat unique in that debaters actually argue for the positions they oppose for a time. For a number of rounds (similar to the standard format), the debaters attempt to defend their positions and offer rebuttals to the very positions they agree with. On the second last round, the debaters switch back to their respective positions (with the debater who went second in the previous rounds going first) and attempt to criticize their own approaches and how his/her opponent approached the issue. The last round will consist of the final statements.

– Presentation and Rebuttal debate

This debate would take place in two parts: the presentation phase and the rebuttal phase. In the presentation phase, the debaters do not interact with each other and instead present their fully developed arguments. In the rebuttal phase, the debate participants would then attempt to refute each other’s fully developed argument and defend their own. This kind of debate would best be utilized in the context of a concurrent debate (see above).