Debate "Rule of Thumb"?

[CoolaxGaming]

Hey Everyone!

Quick question, friend and I were having a friendly discussion, and we found that we could not agree on a certain topic.

My friend is an expert on debate, but I am not. We came across the following statement -

"[in a bet] going off the latter’s terms, since the specified person consented/agreed to a set of terms."

Is that true?

Basically, meaning that if 2 people had a bet, the person who agreed to the bet has the right to define undefined things in the original argument?

Or something like that

Thanks for replying

[vanished]

That doesn't feel like a full sentence

[CoolaxGaming]

That doesn't feel like a full sentence

"As I said, we are going off the latter’s terms, since the specified person consented/agreed to a set of terms."

[Godlygamer23]

If you agree to a bet knowing all rules, you agree to said rules. Any argument could be considered null.

[Dobbsjr]

 

I disagree with that statement. If the person who agrees to do the bet(or whatever) gets to set the terms, s/he has the chance to make the conditions more favorable towards them. If you agree to a bet knowing the rules then you have to follow those rules.

[vanished]

OK the edit makes more sense now.

 

Well, the way I see it, both people have to agree on everything before the bet is "set".  If they don't, or if it turns out later that something wasn't defined or accounted for, they have to agree at that point or nullify it.  

[CoolaxGaming]

If you agree to a bet knowing all rules, you agree to said rules. Any argument could be considered null.

So lets say we had a bet, but did not mention some specifics, does one of the members of the bet have privilege in deciding the specifics?

The argument with my friend that the rule applys to every debate, even if agreed upon or not.

[Godlygamer23]

So lets say we had a bet, but did not mention some specifics, does one of the members of the bet have privilege in deciding the specifics?

The argument with my friend that the rule applys to every debate, even if agreed upon or not.

If there are hidden things, then I would say that it would be fair to allow the other person to debate the rules. If certain things were not stated as part of the requirements, those hidden things to me are null as the person was not aware of them, and may not have agreed to the bet otherwise.

[Mug]

If there are hidden things, then I would say that it would be fair to allow the other person to debate the rules.

A point that we can all learn from

[Dzzope]

The rules are set out in any agreement, they should not be changeable without mutual consent from the involved parties.

That said if you didn't specifically discuss something then it may have been assumed..

However I'd assume that an agreement like this from a legal stance would state that the rules are what were actually discussed and mutually agreed.

[Volbet]

So if I understand correctly the situation is this: Person A makes and agreement with Person B. Somthing unforseen then happens, and we have to determine who gets to determine the unforsseen circumstance's inpact on the agreement.

Is this correct or am I completly wrong?

 

If we go with a legal argumentation, that is part of most contractual laws in the western world, then Person B would be the one to determine what any unforseen circumstance would do to the agreement. 

If Person A is the author of the agreement (meant as the originator) then s/he also carries the risk of everything that is not accountet for in the original agreement.

 

Of course, there would also be a rule of assumption, which is a legal argumentation on to itself. 

Basically, if the original agreement contained sections, from which Person B could safely assume something that wasn't explicitly written in the agreement, then Person B can't determin the rules on that/those circumstances.

I would be up to Person A to prove that an unforseen circumstance could be read implicit out of the agreement.