GITP Debating competition Discussion thread- DEBATE NOW

[xanaphia]

Affirmative Team:
1st: GAThraawn
2nd: Llama231
3rd: Dirk Kris

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd: Black_Pants_Guy
The topic is as follows:
"This House proposes that Freedom is essential for happiness."

I'll start the thread on Sunday, and you speakers will start posting on thursday. It will be called GITP Debating Competition Auditorium.


END EDIT


I think it would be fun to run a GITP debating competition. You all seem so literate and clever, and I could use it as practice.

I think that the rules could be something like as follows:


Two teams, of three people each.
The first speaker of the affirmative team posts his (or her) speech.
Then the rest of the speakers post consecutively.
Speeches are 950-1050 words long including rebuttal.
I'd find three adjudicators to mark.
Speeches are marked out of 100.


The marking system is broken down like this:
40 points Matter: What you say. How correct and intelligent you are.
40 points Manner: How you say it. Writing style, wittiness.
20 points Method: How well you conform to the rules of debating.

Opinions? Anyone got any ideas for topics?

Also, would we be allowed to have political debates? Would that violate the no politics rules?

[Verruckt]

As a major forensics geek in high school I have to say I'm interested. On the other hand I'm certain that overtly political topics would be a clear breach of the "no politics" policy here.

[Ichneumon]

I'd be interested, but it really depends on the topic and I think it would likely be against the rules of the forums, I am afraid. But I'd be interested.

[Zeb The Troll]

I think the idea is great. However I'm concerned that debate worthy subject matter would be against forum rules since much debate is based on politics and religion.

[Exeson]

I'm not sure if it is just me but I feel that debates lose a lot when not done in person? As in I definitely think the speaker's charisma and body language has a massive role in what they say, which is lost when you are just reading a speech off of a computer screen.

Just my 2 pence.

[Serpentine]

I think it could work well enough, and I think it should be very very easy to keep politics and/or religion out of it - the OP's last debate topic was the comparative merit of JKRowling and Shakespear, and I once did one on whether... I dunno, something about violence on film and/or games. Hell, we could do it on something really banal - ""Blue raspberry" is a legitimate flavour", "Make-up is bad", "The 80s were great!" - or philosophical - "Existence is subjective", "Mankind is transient", "The human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite" - or particularly suited to these forums - "Daleks could totally take on the Borg", "4e is better than 3.5", "The internet is a great boon for civilisation" - and so on and etcetera.

[Generic Archer]

I'm interested, but I think 1000 words may be a little high.
I mean reading essentially 10 A4 pages if you're the last speaker, even if it's well written it will be tedious, maybe drop it to 500 words per person, words lose a lot of their ability to engage if they are written

Dae

[Ichneumon]

I'm interested, but I think 1000 words may be a little high.
I mean reading essentially 10 A4 pages if you're the last speaker, even if it's well written it will be tedious, maybe drop it to 500 words per person, words lose a lot of their ability to engage if they are written

Dae

I agree, altough it might be very interesting and engaging to listen to a long speech by a charismatic politician, it might not be a good idea to write such a long speech, especially because we likely can't write about anything that is really significant (=political) and reading it makes it a lot less engaging.

[Serpentine]

I'm interested, but I think 1000 words may be a little high.
I mean reading essentially 10 A4 pages if you're the last speaker, even if it's well written it will be tedious, maybe drop it to 500 words per person, words lose a lot of their ability to engage if they are written

Dae...you can only fit 100 words to a page? :smallconfused: It's more like 2 A4 pages (based on my assignments with 11 or 12pt Times New Roman font), which, depending on the topic/s, should mostly be fine.

[Ichneumon]

...you can only fit 100 words to a page? :smallconfused: It's more like 2 A4 pages (based on my assignments with 11 or 12pt Times New Roman font), which, depending on the topic/s, should mostly be fine.

Yeah, but you have to read more than 1 speech, I think. That would be 4 speeches per topic I guess?

[Serpentine]

Ah, right. Good point.

[Ichneumon]

Ah, right. Good point.

Yeah, and although I'm all hot for debates and speeches and pseudo-political thingies, I am not so hot for reading 4000+ words on why Star Trek is superior to the Star Wars original trilogy.

[Totally Guy]

"4e is better than 3.5",

This would be a good theme, then we'd have a thread to reference the Pros and Cons of each that we can reference when it comes up.

Epic too: "Let's settle this once and for all!"

[Ichneumon]

This would be a good theme, then we'd have a thread to reference the Pros and Cons of each that we can reference when it comes up.

Epic too: "Let's settle this once and for all!"

I agree, 4e vs 3.5 is a good theme. I'd love to write a speech about that, either side.

[Generic Archer]

...you can only fit 100 words to a page? :smallconfused: It's more like 2 A4 pages (based on my assignments with 11 or 12pt Times New Roman font), which, depending on the topic/s, should mostly be fine.

Ich had it right, I was working on the total, it's two pages, per speech, which if your the last person is 7 other speeches...
Problem with the 3.5 / 4 debate is that I doubt we have enough people that actually know and respect both systems, so we'd just get a structured flame war

Dane

[Mr. Mud]

I'm not sure if it is just me but I feel that debates lose a lot when not done in person? As in I definitely think the speaker's charisma and body language has a massive role in what they say, which is lost when you are just reading a speech off of a computer screen.

Just my 2 pence.

Agreed, although I don't really see this as... debating. It's like a controlled flaming... Done with spiffy words and nuances. It could be fun though, but I'm not sure if I have time for 1000 word essays, and the research behind it all... If there is some sort of list you're making, please feel free to put me in the "Maybe's" :smallbiggrin:.

[DamnedIrishman]

Put me in as a definite yes, especially if some kind of trophy is involved. Alternatively, I'd be glad to help you adjudicate. Hopefully the various discussions I've been involved in recently have portrayed me as a fairly reasonable man.

I agree with the points that 1000 words are too long. I think 500 words would be enough, especially with the parliamentary debate system you've described. The smaller word limit also encourages concise arguments, and stops long rambling trains of thought.

Real-life politics are a definite no-no. However, aspects of political theory (as long as they're divorced from actual modern politics) are fine to discuss - as my thread on the Ideal Society shows. Most things can be discussed as long as they are handled maturely and in abstract terms.

[Totally Guy]

Agreed, although I don't really see this as... debating. It's like a controlled flaming... Done with spiffy words and nuances.

I think that's what debating is. Isn't it?

I mean my little brother is very good at debating. He managed to convince me that I'm a bad person because I'm straight. That's how good he is.:smallfrown:

[DamnedIrishman]

Nah, debate is the art of convincing a third party that you're more intelligent than your opponent.

[Jkoshe]

Colour me interested. It's one of my hobbies to debate random views with my friends.

[Kaelaroth]

I'm not sure if it is just me but I feel that debates lose a lot when not done in person? As in I definitely think the speaker's charisma and body language has a massive role in what they say, which is lost when you are just reading a speech off of a computer screen.

Just my 2 pence.

My sentiments exactly. Though I like to debate in real life, and do so regularly, this is not the place for it/me, I feel.
Ta-ra.

[Faulty]

I'm interested.

[Verruckt]

Nah, debate is the art of convincing a third party that you're more intelligent than your opponent.

Mmm... yes and no. More often I find that debate is the art of convincing a third party that your opponent is wrong (especially on the negative). It's like Punk rock, you only have to give well spoken dissent, not solutions.

More on topic, may I suggest setting up a voting thread so people can offer topic ideas and then vote on which order they are dropped into the cue? Of course site administrators might want to check the list and veto any topics they find too political/religious for the boards. Also we'll need to set up teams and decide a method for doing so.

Let's get this party started!

[Flame of Anor]

Wow, I totally want to try this.

[Serpentine]

In my (limited, primary school) experience, debating isn't so much about "right and wrong" as "who puts forward the best argument". As in the original post:

40 points Matter: What you say. How correct and intelligent you are.
40 points Manner: How you say it. Writing style, wittiness.
20 points Method: How well you conform to the rules of debating.In other words: how much you tell the truth and how many accurate (if distorted) facts you present; how well you say it, how clever and intelligent and entertaining you are; and, well, whether you obey the rules (which should probably be posted, by the way, and the roles of each team member for those who haven't done any debating). There's absolutely nothing about convincing the judges that you're right, and indeed a judge that gave points to the team they simply agreed with would almost certainlly be doing a very bad job of judging.

[xanaphia]

The reason I said 1000 words is that my third speaker speech is exactly 500 words, and I do half rebuttal. However, I have checked, and my first speaker usually has about 800 words in his speech. So from now on the word length is 750-850 words.

I think that "that 3.5 is better than 4e" probably has to be our first topic, given the popular support.

I'll now post complete speech formats.
Xanaphia's GITP Debating Guidelines
Definitions:
Theme: Your team's "catchphrase"; you say it over and over again. It is usually derived from the topic.
Topic: What the debate is about, e.g. "That 3.5e is better than 4e"
Rebuttal: When you make a point against your opponent. The correct format for a rebut is repeating your opponent's argument and which speaker said it, then saying why it is wrong.
Argument: A reason the debaters use to prove their point. For instance, "4e is like WOW."

Speech formats
Now follows the parts of each speaker's speech.

First Speaker Affirmative
Attention Grabber: A short anecdote, joke, hypothetical story, or quote to grab the audience's attention and support your case.

Introduction: Tell the audience what you will say. Something like this:


Good morning chairperson, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Xanaphia and I am the first speaker of the affirmative team. As first speaker of the affirmative team, I will define our case, provide several arguments towards our cause, and prove to you once and for all that THEME.

Definition: Define each important term in the topic. For instance, "'Better' means more desirable to play; more fun and entertaining." This is essential in some debates, not that important in others.

Summary of your speech and other speaker's speeches: Say what you will say, say what your second speaker will say, say what your third speaker will say.

Arguments: Generally three different points which prove your theme. This is the main part of your speech.

Conclusion: Finish with one final exhortation to the audience or argument.

First Speaker Negative
Attention Grabber: A short anecdote, joke, hypothetical story, or quote to grab the audience's attention and support your case.

Introduction: Tell the audience what you will say. Something like this:


Good evening chairperson, ladies and gentlemen my name is Xanaphia and jointly with my teammates on the negative side we are here tonight to convince you that “Protecting the public from bikies should come before civil liberties”. I will define our case, provide several arguments towards our cause, rebut the opposition and prove to you once and for all that THEME.

Definition: Either redefine the opponent's definition or agree with it.

Summary of your speech and other speaker's speeches: Say what you will say, say what your second speaker will say, say what your third speaker will say (which will only be rebuttal.)

Rebuttal: Highlight flaws in the opposition's argument. Aim for 150 words.

Arguments: Generally three different points which prove your theme. This is the main part of your speech.

Conclusion: Finish with one final exhortation to the audience or argument.

Second Speaker
Both teams' second speaker's behave identically.
Attention Grabber: A short anecdote, joke, hypothetical story, or quote to grab the audience's attention and support your case.

Introduction: Tell the audience what you will say.

Summary of your speech and other speaker's speeches: Say what your first speaker said, say what you will say, say what your third speaker will say.

Rebuttal: Highlight flaws in the opposition's argument. Aim for 300 words.

Arguments: Generally two different points which prove your theme. This is the main part of your speech.

Conclusion: Finish with one final exhortation to the audience or argument.

Third Speaker Affirmative
Attention Grabber: A short anecdote, joke, hypothetical story, or quote to grab the audience's attention and support your case.

Introduction: Tell the audience what you will say.

Summary of your speech and other speaker's speeches: Explain what you will say.

Rebuttal: Highlight flaws in the opposition's argument. Aim for 400 words.

Arguments: One final point which prove your theme.

Summary of other speaker's arguments: Summarize your team's points. Aim for 150 words.

Summary of other speaker's arguments: Summarize your team's points. Aim for 150 words.

Conclusion: Finish with one final exhortation to the audience or argument.

Third Speaker Negative
Note: third speaker absolutely cannot introduce new arguments.
Attention Grabber: A short anecdote, joke, hypothetical story, or quote to grab the audience's attention and support your case.

Introduction: Tell the audience what you will say.

Summary of your speech and other speaker's speeches: Say what your first speaker said, say what your second speaker said, say what you will say.

Rebuttal: Highlight flaws in the opposition's argument. Aim for 500 words.

Conclusion: Finish with one final exhortation to the audience or argument.


So now all I need are some adjudicators and speakers.

The topic will be "That 3.5 is better than 4e". If you want to nominate yourself as speaker, post after here with your preferred side and speaker position. If you want to nominate yourself as judge, post as well. Preferably, judges should have some debating experience.

Thanks.

[billtodamax]

I'll sit out the first debate, as I don't know much of either 4e or 3.5. I might make a good judge, as I don't have any preconcieved opinions.

[Archonic Energy]

*watches Argumental*

oooooh. i vote Red.

[Yarram]

I would be interested in doing this. Perhaps as second speaker to either side?
I have done debating at school. Usually though you'd do a more ambiguous topic though like, "we should stick to the beaten track" or something extremely controversial like "public transport should replace all private transport" wouldn't you? Political stuff was always outside the boat when we did this at school so it needn't be worried about I hope. Your topic is great though of course.

[DamnedIrishman]

I will have to bow out of this debate as I don't know enough about 4e to properly rationalise my arguments.

However, I would be very interesting in judging. I think I'm pretty much impartial on the subject, I have a comfortable grasp of critical theory and I hate fanboyism.
In fact, I'll go so far as to request being a judge. Unless anybody wants to veto my application and feels justified in doing so.

[Dogmantra]

I'm interested in debating, but not 3.5 vs 4e. I'll have to join in the next round

If you're short of judges for this round though, I could do that.
I mean chronically short :smallwink:

[Verruckt]

I too will have to sit this one out but would be more than happy to take a judging slot, I really have no preference towards one system or the other and it might be refreshing to hear some well reasoned arguments on the subject.

[xanaphia]

Considering the lack of enthusiasm for the topic, I think I'll take it back one stage.

Please give suggestions for debate topics, and comment on above ones.

[Wandiya]

Buck I would be happy to judge or maybe draw a trophy or two (though Serp could probably make better ones) working on one now:smallbiggrin:

[xanaphia]

Wandiya, I believe that you aren't allowed to call people their real names on this forum:smallbiggrin:.

[DamnedIrishman]

Really? I didn't see that rule. I think it just comes down to personal preference. My name is Conor, by the way.

Anyway, here are ten possible topics for debate (imagine these are all preceded by 'This House Proposes [that]'):

1. The D&D Alignment system is fundamentally flawed.

2. Two wrongs never make a right.

3. Freedom is necessary for happiness.

4. The internet makes us more antisocial individuals.

5. Obesity should be outlawed, and obese people forced to diet by the state.

6. Cosmetic surgery is ultimately a good thing.

7. Human beings are higher beings than animals, and thus have the right to enslave, exploit and destroy them as they wish.

8. Violence is never justified.

9. All drugs should be legalised.

10. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Verruckt]

This representative would like to petition for the second or third speaker's position in affirmation of the Houses first proposition, being "The D&D Alignment system (and here I assume this to mean that circa 3.x) is fundamentally flawed."

I also suggest that once the other two slots on this speaker's side of the proposition are filled that he and his fellow speakers congregate and speak to the manner in which they are to speak on D&D's lack of manners so to speak.

[Ichneumon]

1. The D&D Alignment system is fundamentally flawed.


Possible


2. Two wrongs never make a right.


Interesting




3. Freedom is necessary for happiness.


Very philosophical, I like.




4. The internet makes us more antisocial individuals.


Possible, but I expect a WOW-flame war




5. Obesity should be outlawed, and obese people forced to diet by the state.

It does seem unfair that obese people are entitled to that much mody mass.... In all seriousness, I think this might turn insulting and is a subject that is better avoided.



6. Cosmetic surgery is ultimately a good thing.


Possible, indeed.


7. Human beings are higher beings than animals, and thus have the right to enslave, exploit and destroy them as they wish.

I say animal rights is far to political, even though it makes for an interesting discussion I think we should avoid it before it turns ugly. Human supremacists versus non-speciesist abolitionists, not a good idea.




8. Violence is never justified.


I like this one very much and would like to debate against this statement.



9. All drugs should be legalised.


Although I think it can't cause much harm, I think it is too political.



10. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I say this is philosophical and abstract enough to work, utilitarianism. I am in favor of this subject, although it might turn too political when you use examples.

Overall, I like many of your choices, although some are extremely likely to turn into flame wars.

[Verruckt]

I must say that I rather like numbers 3 and 10, though number 2 could be fun. I think need some absurd, fun topics. "Black is a better color than Pink" or something of that nature.

[xanaphia]

I like all suggestions.

Entirely abstract topics like red is better than blue are annoying and pointless in my opinion. I prefer debates to actually have arguments.

[Verruckt]

Pointless yes, annoying no, I find it quite fun to try and construct ways to actually argue something like that. Or we could just argue "This House Finds Absurd Topics to be Irritating." :smallamused:

[DamnedIrishman]

I must say that I rather like numbers 3 and 10, though number 2 could be fun. I think need some absurd, fun topics. "Black is a better color than Pink" or something of that nature.

The problem with such arguments is that they scare off would-be debators because constructing a rational argument around them is extremely difficult. Which also means, your marks will suffer.

People of the forum, please vote now. Or come up with a better suggestion. It's your shout. If you don't want to argue, vote for the one you think would be most interesting to watch.

[Meirnon]

OOH! A DEBATE! :smallbiggrin:
Lucky me, I'm the seventh seed in the state of Nebraska for HS Varsity policy debate... so... maybe I can argue your pants off. Or... y'know... argue them back on if they're already off, cause no one wants to see that.:smallamused:

[Verruckt]

OOH! A DEBATE! :smallbiggrin:
Lucky me, I'm the seventh seed in the state of Nebraska for HS Varsity policy debate... so... maybe I can argue your pants off. Or... y'know... argue them back on if they're already off, cause no one wants to see that.:smallamused:

Ah yes, but there's not great big cartons of evidence to help you now boy, you're in the land of LD, Team Debate and Congress, where your only friends are a quick tongue and Wikipedia. No more will the word "Malthus" and an accusatory finger of shame win you the day, nor will a carefully placed critique of your opponents obviously anti-feminist leanings bring you success in a debate about grain subsidies. No no dear boy, no we have to actually make sense.

(no, policy debate really is quite lovely, and my opinion of it has nothing to do with having 2 wins and 4 losses at the college level.:smallwink: Though given your ability to argue pants on and off again you seem to be already well prepared for the common trials of debate at that level:smalltongue:)

EDIT: And I'll cast my vote for 3. Freedom is necessary for happiness.

[Fostire]

I like number 3 as well

[Yarram]

I like all suggestions.

Entirely abstract topics like red is better than blue are annoying and pointless in my opinion. I prefer debates to actually have arguments.

I agree with that. On another note, my dad, who previously used to debate also, once had the topic, "crinkle cut chips are better than straight."
To which, he stood up and boycotted the whole debate. Heh.

I dunno about number 3. I'm all ready discussing it in a different thread. All ma arguments are all ready revealed lol.

[Ichneumon]

I vote number 8.

[xanaphia]

Everyone please vote now. I'll tally votes below. Remember that you can vote for other topics that you invent too.

1. The D&D Alignment system is fundamentally flawed.

2. Two wrongs never make a right. 1

3. Freedom is necessary for happiness. 3

4. The internet makes us more antisocial individuals.

5. Obesity should be outlawed, and obese people forced to diet by the state.

6. Cosmetic surgery is ultimately a good thing.

7. Human beings are higher beings than animals, and thus have the right to enslave, exploit and destroy them as they wish.

8. Violence is never justified.

9. All drugs should be legalised.

10. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. 2

Also, can someone tell me how to make tables?

[Zeb The Troll]

{table]column1|column2|column3[/table]

Gives you this
{table]column1|column2|column3[/table]

You can also still use other formatting tools, like center and strikethrough, to make it look prettier.

{table]column1|column2|column3[/table]
{table]column1|column2|column3[/table]

{table]
Topic|
Votes

The D&D Alignment system is fundamentally flawed.

Two wrongs never make a right.|
1

Freedom is necessary for happiness.|
3

The internet makes us more antisocial individuals.

Obesity should be outlawed, and obese people forced to diet by the state.

Cosmetic surgery is ultimately a good thing.

Human beings are higher beings than animals, and thus have the right to enslave, exploit and destroy them as they wish.

Violence is never justified.

All drugs should be legalised.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.|
2[/table]

[The_JJ]

I like 2, 3, and 10. I'll argue con, if you really need a debator, but I'll probably just rush in with 'absolute aphorisms fail to reflect the actualities of the real world' and walk off. So I'd probably be better as a judge.

Also, I would've loved to debate in high school but I hate hate hated the teacher who ran the team. Eh, whatever, probably would've conflicted with other things on my schedual.

[billtodamax]

5. Obesity should be outlawed, and obese people forced to diet by the state.

7. Human beings are higher beings than animals, and thus have the right to enslave, exploit and destroy them as they wish.

9. All drugs should be legalised.

These seem to be very easily won by one side. Assuming equal teams, I'd say that con would easily win on all of them.

[Verruckt]

These seem to be very easily won by one side. Assuming equal teams, I'd say that con would easily win on all of them.

Well, yes on 5, because the invasion of rights argument is so easy, but the other two can be much much harder fought. 9 is a matter of contention with some good arguments on both sides and if you go con on number 7 then you must contend with fun arguments like "I just name dropped Kant so Ha!" and "You inspire environmental terrorism."

[Serpentine]

Throwing in some of my "suggestions" from earlier:

"Blue raspberry" is a legitimate flavour
Make-up is bad
The 80s were great!
Existence is subjective
Mankind is transient
The human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite
Daleks could totally take on the Borg
4e is better than 3.5
The internet is a great boon for civilisation

[Totally Guy]

All this voting is making us slow and indecisive.

My suggestion ^ :smalltongue:

[Ichneumon]

What about "Having debates is useless"?:smallamused:

[DamnedIrishman]

These seem to be very easily won by one side. Assuming equal teams, I'd say that con would easily win on all of them.

No debating competition is easily one by both sides unless it is impossible to argue. You will be marked well for making a well-reasoned and justified argument (Matter), the elegance, wit and conciseness of your argument (Manner) and your concordance with critical theory (Method).
I feel that the reason you think that one side would easily win is due to argumentum ad populum - the fact that most people would normally agree with one side of the argument. This is irrelevant in this case, as you're trying to argue well, not convince your opponent of the rightness of your position. And I would remind you that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
The marks of a skilled debator are the ability to play advocatus diaboli and the courage to choose to join the more difficult side of a debate, as it is a greater challenge to their argumentative abilities.


then you must contend with fun arguments like "I just name dropped Kant so Ha!" and "You inspire environmental terrorism."

Argumentum ad verecundiam - appeals to authority like namedropping Kant - won't get you anywhere against a balanced judge. Debate is judged on the quality of the arguments. If the argument isn't put forth well it won't be well marked, regardless of who is was first proposed by. Besides, namedropping is the sign of a weak debator and is also logical fallacy.
"You inspire environmental terrorism" isn't even an argument, it's an attack. Again, nil points. It doesn't address issues raised in an argument.

I really, really want to help judge this now. :smallamused:

[Ichneumon]

I'd like to be the one who would do the first speech against humans being superior to animals, in the unlikely event that we turn out to choose that subject....

[Meirnon]

Ah yes, but there's not great big cartons of evidence to help you now boy, you're in the land of LD, Team Debate and Congress, where your only friends are a quick tongue and Wikipedia. No more will the word "Malthus" and an accusatory finger of shame win you the day, nor will a carefully placed critique of your opponents obviously anti-feminist leanings bring you success in a debate about grain subsidies. No no dear boy, no we have to actually make sense.

(no, policy debate really is quite lovely, and my opinion of it has nothing to do with having 2 wins and 4 losses at the college level.:smallwink: Though given your ability to argue pants on and off again you seem to be already well prepared for the common trials of debate at that level:smalltongue:)

EDIT: And I'll cast my vote for 3. Freedom is necessary for happiness.

Well, good sir, I do fully realize your point. My point, though, is that I win, and am liked by the judges because me and my partner are VERY straightforward. We don't run K's that have a link that makes no sense. Our favorite thing to do to a Heidegar kritik is to pull out Kohn in '93 and call them all Nazis. Really, our case was no nonsense algae biofuels, and our negs were straight up World Trade Organization violations and case-specifics. We would cut links, remove inherency, question solvency, and otherwise beat the shiz outa the five stock issues: the *censored because the acronym spells a very vulgar word and I dun wanna be banned, but it rhymes with "the shiz"*.

Me and my partner often ad-hoc our arguments, and only have 2 tubs of evidence, most of it generic blocks. Our fellow debators look at the round schematics, see our name, and fear the loss. We gave the two best debators on the circuit the toughest time out of all the teams here, nearly winning the day against their dreaded Finnegan's Wake affirmative... WHY THE HELL IS THE "EXCESS" AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY?!

Lo and behold that while I do realize that this is a different sort of debate, I am quite capable. While I myself am most capable as a T and stock issues debator, I do know that this probably won't apply here, but I am fairly good at other things. I could win a tournament in Congress debate, and while I may not match up to my school's other Lincoln-Douglas debaters, I can win against any philistine who doesn't have proper skill.

Also, Malthus is, and always has been, a stupid argument. Human ingenuity will always find a way to let us mate like mad rabbits without reprucussions, it is empirically proven.

In conclusion, I vote for #3 because of my chaotic good tendencies.

[Verruckt]

Well, good sir, I do fully realize your point. My point, though, is that I win, and am liked by the judges because me and my partner are VERY straightforward. We don't run K's that have a link that makes no sense. Our favorite thing to do to a Heidegar kritik is to pull out Kohn in '93 and call them all Nazis. Really, our case was no nonsense algae biofuels, and our negs were straight up World Trade Organization violations and case-specifics. We would cut links, remove inherency, question solvency, and otherwise beat the shiz outa the five stock issues: the *censored because the acronym spells a very vulgar word and I dun wanna be banned, but it rhymes with "the shiz"*.

Me and my partner often ad-hoc our arguments, and only have 2 tubs of evidence, most of it generic blocks. Our fellow debators look at the round schematics, see our name, and fear the loss. We gave the two best debators on the circuit the toughest time out of all the teams here, nearly winning the day against their dreaded Finnegan's Wake affirmative... WHY THE HELL IS THE "EXCESS" AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY?!

Lo and behold that while I do realize that this is a different sort of debate, I am quite capable. While I myself am most capable as a T and stock issues debator, I do know that this probably won't apply here, but I am fairly good at other things. I could win a tournament in Congress debate, and while I may not match up to my school's other Lincoln-Douglas debaters, I can win against any philistine who doesn't have proper skill.

Also, Malthus is, and always has been, a stupid argument. Human ingenuity will always find a way to let us mate like mad rabbits without reprucussions, it is empirically proven.

In conclusion, I vote for #3 because of my chaotic good tendencies.



It is refreshing to run into debaters who know their stuff. The two rounds I and my partner won were against teams who were pretty much just pulling cards and reading them, one even slipping so far as to begin reading aff evidence on a neg case. And if you think Malthus is stupid there's always the "All capitalists are Liars" (I've seen that win a round) krit and then of course there's the Debate Pirates, but we don't talk about them.



Argumentum ad verecundiam - appeals to authority like namedropping Kant - won't get you anywhere against a balanced judge. Debate is judged on the quality of the arguments. If the argument isn't put forth well it won't be well marked, regardless of who is was first proposed by. Besides, namedropping is the sign of a weak debator and is also logical fallacy.
"You inspire environmental terrorism" isn't even an argument, it's an attack. Again, nil points. It doesn't address issues raised in an argument.


I didn't say they were good arguments, just things you can't really ignore unless you want the next speaker to expand them and flank you so to speak. Part of the judging criteria is your ability to respond, you aren't debating in a vacuum.

[Meirnon]

It is refreshing to run into debaters who know their stuff. The two rounds I and my partner won were against teams who were pretty much just pulling cards and reading them, one even slipping so far as to begin reading aff evidence on a neg case. And if you think Malthus is stupid there's always the "All capitalists are Liars" (I've seen that win a round) krit and then of course there's the Debate Pirates, but we don't talk about them.


Yes, well, Policy (and debate in general) is a dieing sport. My partner and I are the only varsity policy team we have, and we're the oldest school in my city. My brother and his partner make up our only novices, and we only have 2 LDers (one who just got runner up at state and this is her second year), and 1 PF team. We're small, but we're good. Also, if debate had taught me anything, ANYTHING can win a round if you spin it the right way. I like using fiat alot. In fact, next year's case, my partner and I are going to do something that wouldn't be possible WITHOUT fiat.:smallbiggrin:

My point being, is that while we're straightforward, we're also bastards for the rules. Our coach refuses to give us arguments, so we have to make them ourselves, and we're better for it. I'm gonna be going to a camp (hopefully) in a month or so, and my partner's going to the Kentucky Institute (which, as we all know, is one of the most prestigious ones... he WAS gonna go to the washington institute, but didn't feel like spending the time there).

[xanaphia]

Okay, it looks like topic 3 wins. That freedom is essential for happiness. Please post for nominating as a speaker or a judge.

Judges
DamnedIrishman
Meirnon
Ichneumon

Affirmative Team:
Amesoeurs is somewhere on this team.
1st:
2nd:
3rd:

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd:

[DamnedIrishman]

Okay, it looks like topic 3 wins. That freedom is essential for happiness. Please post for nominating as a speaker or a judge.


Wanna wanna wanna be a judge!

[Verruckt]

second negative slot please.

[Meirnon]

Give me an affirmative slot if you can. I dun care which. Maybe 3rd so I can rebut my senior's speech.

[Yarram]

Could I go first negative please.

[Faulty]

AFFIRMATIVE TEAM PLEASE! I can't do negative. I just can't.

[Ichneumon]

If you need another judge, I'd be happy and honoured to do it.

[Meirnon]

I'm afraid that I can't do this like I planned. I've got things going on, and I won't have time to actually write and rebut speeches... I'll gladly give my time as a judge though... Sorry about that. I pretty much only have time to read currently, and I'm quite a bit aggravated by the fact.:smallannoyed:

So, a judge spot for me then, instead of 3rd Affirmative. *grumbles and cusses under breath*

[xanaphia]

Ooh, I am already drooling.

I'm going to a folk festival today, so I won't be online until Tuesday. By then we'll probably have complete teams on both sides. At the moment we have the following lineup:

Judges (full)
DamnedIrishman
Meirnon
Ichneumon

Affirmative Team:
Amesoeurs is somewhere on this team.
1st:
2nd:
3rd:

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd:

[FdL]

I think that "that 3.5 is better than 4e" probably has to be our first topic, given the popular support.

Huh? That topic? So this is an attempt at barely-controlled flamewars, then?


AFFIRMATIVE TEAM PLEASE! I can't do negative. I just can't.

You know, it never made any sense to me that in those debating competitions the pro or against side can be adjudicated randomly. Everyone has an opinion about something, you just can't force someone to find about any discoursive justification to any existing topic. Then again I understand they are probably meant as training for the likes of lawyers and politicians.

To be honest, debating competitions never made any sense to me mainly because of that, besides the fact that they're more an exercise in the form of the expression of ideas than actually expressing ideas to do something useful with them.

[Yarram]

You know, it never made any sense to me that in those debating competitions the pro or against side can be adjudicated randomly. Everyone has an opinion about something, you just can't force someone to find about any discoursive justification to any existing topic. Then again I understand they are probably meant as training for the likes of lawyers and politicians.

In debating, it's not about which side is right, rather which side proves itself to be better at justifying their case.

To be honest, debating competitions never made any sense to me mainly because of that, besides the fact that they're more an exercise in the form of the expression of ideas than actually expressing ideas to do something useful with them.
It's entertainment, just like anything. It's interesting to watch people battle it out over a topic that both sides know little about, and 1/2 the people playing, likely agree with the other team.

[DamnedIrishman]

You know, it never made any sense to me that in those debating competitions the pro or against side can be adjudicated randomly. Everyone has an opinion about something, you just can't force someone to find about any discoursive justification to any existing topic.


Subject is completely irrelevant: debate is a test of your rational, oratical and argumentative abilities. Merely because one has an opinion on a subject doesn't mean one can't argue counter to that opinion. Debate is an intellectual exercise: arm-wrestling with your brain.

[Meirnon]

You know, it never made any sense to me that in those debating competitions the pro or against side can be adjudicated randomly. Everyone has an opinion about something, you just can't force someone to find about any discoursive justification to any existing topic. Then again I understand they are probably meant as training for the likes of lawyers and politicians.

To be honest, debating competitions never made any sense to me mainly because of that, besides the fact that they're more an exercise in the form of the expression of ideas than actually expressing ideas to do something useful with them.

It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it, and the random adjudication of a round is simply to display talent, skill, and ability to create a justifiable and convincing argument without the normal necessary bias.

That is why debate is both an elite sport and a dying one; High-schoolers, while many highly intelligent, can't see the point in debate. In the overly-liberal community that is High-School Intellectuals now, any form of conflict as seen as "bad" unless it fits a zealous, liberal purpose of theirs, like feminism, abuse, rape, and other such things. The point I'm trying to make by this is, that debate is dying because kids preach acceptance and understanding, but refuse to understand what Debate really is. They see it as a hostile, mean, conservative thing that it really isn't.

Now, as for me being a judge, I am honored. I'll look forward to a good round, and while Chaotic Good in alignment (And an INFP in myers-briggs, and a 9 in enneogram type), I also hate it when judges screw over debaters because of their own opinion, colloquially known as "judge's intervention". I like keeping things fair, so I'll put all bias aside and do my best to be a good judge.

[DamnedIrishman]

while Chaotic Good in alignment...

...and whilst Chaotic Good in alignment, for this debate you'll pretend to be Lawful Neutral.
:smallwink:

[Ichneumon]

...and whilst Chaotic Good in alignment, for this debate you'll pretend to be Lawful Neutral.
:smallwink:

oooh... Can I be Lawful Evil?:smallamused:

[Yarram]

That is why debate is both an elite sport and a dying one; High-schoolers, while many highly intelligent, can't see the point in debate. In the overly-liberal community that is High-School Intellectuals now, any form of conflict as seen as "bad" unless it fits a zealous, liberal purpose of theirs, like feminism, abuse, rape, and other such things. The point I'm trying to make by this is, that debate is dying because kids preach acceptance and understanding, but refuse to understand what Debate really is. They see it as a hostile, mean, conservative thing that it really isn't.

I apologise if I'm wrong, but I find it far more likely that debating is unpopular because it is "uncool" rather than "children are all philanthropists." I think you're reading into it too much. Among High-School Intellectuals, of which many have low self-esteem in the first place, due to the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" that is very prominent, especially among Australians, most "High-School Intellectuals" are unwilling to put themselves forward out of fear of the slander associated with debating. I'd also like to point out, that it's very likely that debating is as popular today as it was 20 years ago. I'm not sure about this, but evidence doesn't disprove or prove this.

[Meirnon]

Well, Irishman, in Lincoln-Douglas, we like to call it the "veil of ignorance". I believe my senior should know about it. It's where you're supposed to view everything without being yourself, and in effect, nobody. So, lawful neutral wouldn't be as accurate, as say, True Neutral. There can be effective arguments about anarchism, too.

As for the "tall poppy syndrome", you're thinking of the atypical, generic, idea of high school intellectuals.

As of late, HSI's have created their own culture in spite of trying to fit in with others. In my school, this has taken form of a new "prep" group made up of the Theater Kids. They are all from well-to-do, affluent families, and while they have a greater tendency to kindness to other kids because they are HSI's, they are extremely condescending, rude, and ignorant. While I do have a tendency to read a little too much into things, I have a dear friend who was on the brink of becoming a Theater Kid, and he has a strong opinion as to why he doesn't want to do debate. It is no reason that he's not socially accepted, because he is. He doesn't want to do debate, though, because of the popular opinion that it is a barbaric, crude, and fundamentally non-liberal sport.

There is also another surprising thing involving HSI's. First off, we're not all bottle-cap glasses and pocket protectors. Instead, many of us are now skinny-jeans and emo-haircuts or polo-shirts and surfer bowl-cuts. And because of this, many other groups are accepting the Theater Kids (but only the Theater Kids), including the Jocks, who have, themselves, become part of the school theater just so they can hang around the Theater Kids. I do believe that this is not just our school, because friends from other schools talk about the same thing happening in their school with their affluent kids. Now, I do not believe that it is much of a stretch to assume that with friends even out of town and out of state saying the same thing, that it's considered wide-spread enough to justify why debate is no longer popular. The truth is, the only debate that has much of any kind of crowd anymore is Congress, which is in itself, just a popularity contest. I do not believe that it should be allowed in debate competitions because there is NO ARGUING AT ALL. There's no rebuttals, and no opposing viewpoints, only 20 kids sitting at a table, each of them proposing a plan, and then everyone voting on which plan to enact at the end of the "round". Now, I do believe I have made my point as to why debate is dying, and if you wish to further argue the point, I am open to PM's.

[xanaphia]

Well, Irishman, in Lincoln-Douglas, we like to call it the "veil of ignorance". I believe my senior should know about it. It's where you're supposed to view everything without being yourself, and in effect, nobody. So, lawful neutral wouldn't be as accurate, as say, True Neutral. There can be effective arguments about anarchism, too.

As for the "tall poppy syndrome", you're thinking of the atypical, generic, idea of high school intellectuals.

As of late, HSI's have created their own culture in spite of trying to fit in with others. In my school, this has taken form of a new "prep" group made up of the Theater Kids. They are all from well-to-do, affluent families, and while they have a greater tendency to kindness to other kids because they are HSI's, they are extremely condescending, rude, and ignorant. While I do have a tendency to read a little too much into things, I have a dear friend who was on the brink of becoming a Theater Kid, and he has a strong opinion as to why he doesn't want to do debate. It is no reason that he's not socially accepted, because he is. He doesn't want to do debate, though, because of the popular opinion that it is a barbaric, crude, and fundamentally non-liberal sport.

There is also another surprising thing involving HSI's. First off, we're not all bottle-cap glasses and pocket protectors. Instead, many of us are now skinny-jeans and emo-haircuts or polo-shirts and surfer bowl-cuts. And because of this, many other groups are accepting the Theater Kids (but only the Theater Kids), including the Jocks, who have, themselves, become part of the school theater just so they can hang around the Theater Kids. I do believe that this is not just our school, because friends from other schools talk about the same thing happening in their school with their affluent kids. Now, I do not believe that it is much of a stretch to assume that with friends even out of town and out of state saying the same thing, that it's considered wide-spread enough to justify why debate is no longer popular. The truth is, the only debate that has much of any kind of crowd anymore is Congress, which is in itself, just a popularity contest. I do not believe that it should be allowed in debate competitions because there is NO ARGUING AT ALL. There's no rebuttals, and no opposing viewpoints, only 20 kids sitting at a table, each of them proposing a plan, and then everyone voting on which plan to enact at the end of the "round". Now, I do believe I have made my point as to why debate is dying, and if you wish to further argue the point, I am open to PM's.

What do you mean theatre kids?

Also, people please nominate! We need three more speakers.

[Meirnon]

Theater Kids, are, quite simply, the new popular group in school. You get into it by either being in a show or being a techy, with Techy's pretty much being the initiated mummers and thespians' bitches. There actually is an initiation. These kids are effectively the new preps. Instead of the affluent kids just enjoying their wealth and becoming the generic idea of preps, they all decided to do theater and go the way of very liberalistic views. (I feel like I'm repeating myself... which is one of the worst things to do in a debate. But I can't think of any simpler way to explain it). Therefore, Theater Kids= Preps who claim to have philanthropic feelings, but are otherwise still preps. I hate them for numerous reasons, although the most petty one is taking the spot that my little brother and his friends used during lunch to play D&D and, well, eat lunch for a semester and then looking at my friends, my brother's friends and us like we were terrible people for taking it back a few days later. Otherwise, I hate their hipocracy and general attitude towards people who don't fit into their group; not to mention my 'friend' Will, who after becoming a Techy (and being moderately wealthy) abandoned his old friends (me, Eric, Jordan, etc.) for the Theater Kids. He doesn't seem to care that they'll cast him off as soon as it fits them, even though his Theater Kid girlfriend broke up with him for no reason other than she didn't think "it was going anywhere". I do not like Theater Kids one bit.

[Supagoof]

Here's a thought - For a true champion of debate - people can sign up, but not choose which side they want to be on.

That levels the playing field. If you are debating to prove you a better at debating, then it shouldn't matter which side of the topic you're on.

If you enter the debate to prove one side over the other, then clearly your agenda is skewed to that one side, which to me is going to be driving that thread to possible breaking of forum rules and would leading more towards flaming.

Of course, knowing the subject matter more for one side then the other is at the root of all debate, but a true master debator* would be able be able to use that knowledge regardless if it's pushing his side further or poking holes into the other sides argument.

Just my two cents....

Other topics I can't believe haven't shown up yet...
Pirates vs. Ninjas - Who would win? (This can also have subcategories, such as who would win with [setting/condition] in effect?)
The Cake - A lie?
Spaghetti with red sauce = Best Pasta Ever

*snicker

[Dirk Kris]

I'll be in - on either side, wherever there is room.
You see, I be torn about this topic.

Who wants me?!
...in a non-Q kinda way. :smallwink:

[almyki]

If by 'High School Intellectuals' you mean 'brainy nerds' and by 'Theater Kids' you mean 'new preps', then I have to say that I'm not seeing the trends that you are. Our debate team is rather small, though that may be due more to the fact that our principal has a personal vendetta against the Debate Coach (it's no secret), but I've never really heard it being called 'uncool' or 'barbaric and stupid' or anything. I always thought that debate clubs and kids were just considered on the more 'nerdy straight-lace' side of stereotypes. I was in the debate team for a year and never heard about that sort of stuff.

I've never heard anything about snotty theatre kids, from the kids I've seen the theatre kids seem pretty normal and nice in my school. But I don't generally hang out with those types, nor do I with preps.

And as for nerds, I was smack in the middle of the largest 'nerd group' in our school (anime club, which also held a good amount of sci-fi, fantasy, and misc. nerd types), and our group isn't so much skinny jeans or whatever but more casual baggy clothes, guys with long hair, lots of glasses, and a sprinkle of lolita, gothic, punk, and kitty ears.

If I'm getting your definitions wrong (HSIs, TKs, what-have-yous), then forget I said anything XD .


- - -


But speaking about the debate topic, isn't that kind of... vague? Wouldn't you first have to settle on an accepted definition of both freedom and happiness from all debaters before being able to properly have a debate? Or else you'll start debating on a couple different points, realize that different people are talking about 'freedom' and 'happiness' in different ways (ex. what constitutes freedom, the bounds of freedom, types of freedom), toss around a bit as they struggle to figure each other out, then get in lengthy discussions of what they actually are/are not talking about and what have you (many arguments of which can't really be definitively argued as they are quite subjective and broad in scope). Kind of... has a large potential to start going around in circles, doesn't it?

Or, maybe that's exactly the sort of semantics-based chaos you guys were looking for :/ . I was in a debate team, but I never got to actually do any argument, so~ I wouldn't know. Perhaps it's just a personal bias, as I really detest when an argument gets trapped into running that circle, and I loathe even more arguing about something so vague and subjective that it's difficult to even face the opponent straight-on because they're looking in a whole other direction. :shrugs:

<3 ali

[Meirnon]

Your are getting my definitions sorta wrong. There are no "brainy-nerds", although the TK's are the "new-preps". I'm sure it may be different in your school, but from what I've seen/been told, what's happening in my school is becoming common occurrence.

Also, our debate team is small because of said reasons. The kids is not the problem...
There's me, a seemingly anti-social intellectual with a good heart
Cady, a feminist who is also quite the community shoe. She has low self-esteem, but is probably the best LD debater in the state.
Shyamaly, my former partner because there was no one else to fill the spot who is marvelously good at LD, and is quite popular.
Harley, my partner and one of my best friends, a nihilistic one if there ever was, I bet. Quite sarcastic, but generally friendly.
Sean, my little brother, who looks like a little angel but is a total creeper. He's friends with almost everyone.
Matt, a pessimistic homophobe who generally means well but is brash and rude without meaning to be.
Shea, I don't know her very well, but seems to be the sort who just wants to fit in.
Michelle, an Asian girl who is taller than me even and is fairly popular.

Now, our school is also hindered by the fact that our school... something, I don't know what his position is, but I'm sure he has it just because he's related to the mayor... is not only more inclined to Speech and not debate, but outright biased to the fact that he 'forgets' debate announcements, and when he 'remembers' them, he says them in so low a tone that we can hardly hear him over the intercom, while simultaneously congratulating the speech team for getting second to last place and telling them it's a job well done. It gets rather annoying. I wasn't even recognized for going solo in my second tournament ever in what's supposed to be a team sport, going 3 wins with 1 loss, and would have been able to break and win an award if I had a partner (it's not allowed for a 'maverick' debater to win an award).

[Meirnon]

And as for the vagueness that you speak of, it's the duty of the round to establish the definitions. Half the fun of debate is criticizing your opponent's definition of the resolution (is freedom necessary for happiness). It can be said by the negative that since the affirmative's definition is not correct, they do not meet the resolution, so even if I, a judge, were to believe whole-heartedly in their other arguments, voting for them would be, in essence, voting for the negative because I wouldn't be affirming the resolution. It's not chaos, it's genius.:smallbiggrin:

[Yarram]

If by 'High School Intellectuals' you mean 'brainy nerds' and by 'Theater Kids' you mean 'new preps', then I have to say that I'm not seeing the trends that you are. Our debate team is rather small, though that may be due more to the fact that our principal has a personal vendetta against the Debate Coach (it's no secret), but I've never really heard it being called 'uncool' or 'barbaric and stupid' or anything. I always thought that debate clubs and kids were just considered on the more 'nerdy straight-lace' side of stereotypes. I was in the debate team for a year and never heard about that sort of stuff.

I've never heard anything about snotty theatre kids, from the kids I've seen the theatre kids seem pretty normal and nice in my school. But I don't generally hang out with those types, nor do I with preps.

And as for nerds, I was smack in the middle of the largest 'nerd group' in our school (anime club, which also held a good amount of sci-fi, fantasy, and misc. nerd types), and our group isn't so much skinny jeans or whatever but more casual baggy clothes, guys with long hair, lots of glasses, and a sprinkle of lolita, gothic, punk, and kitty ears.

If I'm getting your definitions wrong (HSIs, TKs, what-have-yous), then forget I said anything XD .


- - -


But speaking about the debate topic, isn't that kind of... vague? Wouldn't you first have to settle on an accepted definition of both freedom and happiness from all debaters before being able to properly have a debate? Or else you'll start debating on a couple different points, realize that different people are talking about 'freedom' and 'happiness' in different ways (ex. what constitutes freedom, the bounds of freedom, types of freedom), toss around a bit as they struggle to figure each other out, then get in lengthy discussions of what they actually are/are not talking about and what have you (many arguments of which can't really be definitively argued as they are quite subjective and broad in scope). Kind of... has a large potential to start going around in circles, doesn't it?

Or, maybe that's exactly the sort of semantics-based chaos you guys were looking for :/ . I was in a debate team, but I never got to actually do any argument, so~ I wouldn't know. Perhaps it's just a personal bias, as I really detest when an argument gets trapped into running that circle, and I loathe even more arguing about something so vague and subjective that it's difficult to even face the opponent straight-on because they're looking in a whole other direction. :shrugs:

<3 ali
Half the fun is arguing with the other team about the definition!

[Flame of Anor]

I don't think we should do #7, ever. There was a thread of that discussion a while back...it was not pretty. GoC and myself, among others, held out for sanity, non-extremism and lack of flaming, but many others did not. Some posters came out of it looking pretty ugly (in a figurative sense).

[Ichneumon]

I don't think we should do #7, ever. There was a thread of that discussion a while back...it was not pretty. GoC and myself, among others, held out for sanity, non-extremism and lack of flaming, but many others did not. Some posters came out of it looking pretty ugly (in a figurative sense).

I'm just wondering, not provoking or even questioning, just wanting to know, what you would view as the "non-extreme" point of view on that subject. Also, I agree, it is not wise to start debating this as people quickly turn to flaming with that subject.

Note to myself: Be sure not to trigger a flame war with this post.:smallsigh:

[DamnedIrishman]

I'm just wondering, not provoking or even questioning, just wanting to know, what you would view as the "non-extreme" point of view on that subject. Also, I agree, it is not wise to start debating this as people quickly turn to flaming with that subject.

Note to myself: Be sure not to trigger a flame war with this post.:smallsigh:

Keep any replies to that in PM, would you? Otherwise other people will join in, and this will turn into an argument about the subject (notice I said 'argument' not 'debate')...

[Ichneumon]

Keep any replies to that in PM, would you? Otherwise other people will join in, and this will turn into an argument about the subject (notice I said 'argument' not 'debate')...

Good point.

Anyone wanting to reply, please do via pm.

[DamnedIrishman]

We've got all the judges and four debators, now we just need one more affirmative and one more negative, or alternately two more affirmative.

YOU, THERE! JOIN THE DEBATE NOW!

Play devil's advocate if you have to. Remeber: it doesn't matter what you believe regarding the subject. It's intellectual exercise!

[Ichneumon]

I remembered having these debates on school, we had to pick sides. I always took the side I disagree with, it's so much fun to actually win debates with arguments you don't agree with.:smallbiggrin:

[GoC]

*peers in*
Haven't had any experience with organized debates (though lots of informal ones). I'll join if there's room.

[DamnedIrishman]

*peers in*
Haven't had any experience with organized debates (though lots of informal ones). I'll join if there's room.

HOOOORAY! Glad you could make it, GoC.

[GoC]

HOOOORAY! Glad you could make it, GoC.

Just looked over the rules...
Hmm...
Only one post per person? Each post a long speach?
Sounds more training to be a politician than attempting to reach a conclusion on an issue...:smallconfused:

I'm not sure I would be very good at this... are you allowed to post arguments you know are unsound?

EDIT: Oh yeah, sorry for backing out of the Ideal Society debate. I have Fear of Wall of Text syndrome.

[DamnedIrishman]

I'm not sure I would be very good at this... are you allowed to post arguments you know are unsound?

EDIT: Oh yeah, sorry for backing out of the Ideal Society debate. I have Fear of Wall of Text syndrome.

As long as try to hide it! :smallwink:

Also: Don't worry about it. I'll be honest: even I'm getting fatigued by the post length now.

[Meirnon]

It uses speeches because a real debate round uses speeches. In policy, it goes like this...
1st affirmative constructive (8 minutes)
Cross examination of the 1st affirmative by the 2nd negative (3 minutes)
1st negative constructive (8 minutes)
Cross examination of the 1st negative by the 1st affirmative (3 minutes)
2nd affirmative constructive (8 minutes)
Cross examination of the 2nd affirmative by the 1st negative (3 minutes)
2nd negative constructive (8 minues)
Cross examination of the 2nd negative by the 2nd affirmative (3 minutes)
1st negative rebuttal (5 minutes)
1st affirmative rebuttal (5 minutes)
2nd negative rebuttal (5 minutes)
2nd affirmative rebuttal (5 minutes)
There is 8 minutes of preparation time for each team to use at the team's discretion, also.

As for the unsound arguments, 90% of all arguments made in debate anymore have half-baked links and inherency :smallwink:. Kritikal affirmatives, anyone?

[GoC]

How about we use the medium we have to it's full extent?
A tree structure. Several arguments backing a point with the type of argument listed besides it. Then branching from that another argument against it.
Like so:

Thesis.
Argument for it. -Type of argument

Argument against green argument 1. -Type of argument

Argument for it. -Type of argument


Argument against it. -Type of argument
Argument against it. -Type of argument


If we do it the high-school way we should have quite a few points docked for each unsound argument.

[Ichneumon]

Also, let's make it a rule that all speeches must be structured in paragraphs (so as not to create wall of texts) and that we refrain from using bold, italic and unline, just so all speeches are consistent. Also, no different fonts or font sizes or colours.

[GoC]

Also, let's make it a rule that all speeches must be structured in paragraphs (so as not to create wall of texts) and that we refrain from using bold, italic and unline, just so all speeches are consistent. Also, no different fonts or font sizes or colours.

What would be the reason for this one?:smallconfused:

[Ichneumon]

What would be the reason for this one?:smallconfused:

So people who decide to use different fonts and such don't get treated differently (and get an unfair advantege) from people who don't?

[DamnedIrishman]

So people who decide to use different fonts and such don't get treated differently (and get an unfair advantege) from people who don't?

There's a certain amount of use in bolding the main points in a paragraph for ease of comprehension.

[Ichneumon]

There's a certain amount of use in bolding the main points in a paragraph for ease of comprehension.

I know it can be useful, but I don't think it should count as "better speech writing", so I think we, as judges, should ignore it. However this is just a minor issue.

[DamnedIrishman]

I know it can be useful, but I don't think it should count as "better speech writing", so I think we, as judges, should ignore it. However this is just a minor issue.

We can discuss these things, along with marking criteria, when the debate is underway.

[Ichneumon]

We can discuss these things, along with marking criteria, when the debate is underway.

Sure, I figure we will have a lot of discussing and agreeing before we can judge who is the best.

[Meirnon]

What about citing evidence? Should we have the debaters put them in spoilers?
Like this:
Kohn '93
Heidegger was a Nazi

Meh?
And should that count as speech letters since theres a limit? I think as long as they're no filibustering, it shouldn't count against their limit.
As for the evidence itself, I think they should cite source/author and year. That's standard for debate cards (pages of evidence).
As for the difference in texts...
Bolding should be used for headings, italics for emphasis, but otherwise none else. I do believe that while it shouldn't be used to get a better position in the debate itself, but if you don't use it, then meanings can be jumbled. With emphasizing text, it's easier for judges to understand.

[Ichneumon]

I see your point. I think quoting is good and citing should be encouraged.

[Meirnon]

Thank you. Debate is one of the things I'm not only good at, but amazing and extremely talented in. As for the branched speeches, maybe it should look something like this.

1st Aff (constructs the affirmative case)
1st Neg (constructs the negative case)
2nd Neg (rebuts the affirmative case)
2nd Aff (rebuts the negative case and defends the affirmative case)
3rd Neg (rebuts the affirmative case and defends the negative case)
3rd Aff (rebuts the negative case and closes the debate while defending the negative)

A bit biased to the neg block, bot I think it'd work better this way. The 1st neg would have to be careful not to directly rebut the affirmative, but rather set up arguments that the 2nd Negative can link to the affirmative while rebutting.

[Yarram]

What about citing evidence? Should we have the debaters put them in spoilers?
Like this:
Kohn '93
Heidegger was a Nazi

Meh?
And should that count as speech letters since theres a limit? I think as long as they're no filibustering, it shouldn't count against their limit.
As for the evidence itself, I think they should cite source/author and year. That's standard for debate cards (pages of evidence).
As for the difference in texts...
Bolding should be used for headings, italics for emphasis, but otherwise none else. I do believe that while it shouldn't be used to get a better position in the debate itself, but if you don't use it, then meanings can be jumbled. With emphasizing text, it's easier for judges to understand.

If we're trying to make it as realistic as possible, that means no source's and no arguments based on proof :smallbiggrin:. It kinda kills the debate when everyone just bases their arguments on quotes, rather than logic and tiny amounts of evidence. In a typical senior debate, we get 1 hour to prepare and before then, we have no idea what the topic could be. In fact, we get three topics to choose from, and then a coin-toss determines which team want's to choose which topic.

[Llama231]

Ooh! Ooh! Me!
Put me wherever I am needed.

[DamnedIrishman]

Affirmative Team:
Amesoeurs is somewhere on this team.
1st:
2nd:
3rd:

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd:

UNDECIDED: Dirk Kris, GoC, Llama231

We now have the requisite number of debators. Argue amongst yourselves over who goes where or if you really don't care then gamble for it or something. Let's get this show on the road, eh?

[Meirnon]

The challenge is not to quote endless amounts of evidence (any more than necessary is filibustering, I say), but linking the evidence and analyzing it to your benefit. I want the debaters to use evidence as a source, and not as the argument itself. Besides, having a well-respected author on your side is gonna help, and even helps the other team if they can discredit him or convince us judges of an alternative interpretation to the card (page of evidence).

Anyways, my point being, is that evidence is good, but shouldn't be entirely relied on. Yarram, it's quite obvious your debate was quite different than mine. Mine is a single topic year round, and different positions on each side of an argument are available. Last year was alternative energy: my stance on affirmative was Algae Biodeisel in conjunction with Vertical Farming techniques to create an inexhaustable supply of fuel for America. My negative stance was that any plan the affirmative could offer would cause a nuclear war because it would destroy the World Trade Organization's credibility (except for our plan, of course).

The point of arguments for me and my type of debate is not just skill, but depth. There's all kinds of rules that you can argue yourself into and out of, too, so a debate round can be more about the rules than the topic which can turn into another argument in and of itself. Judges like me cause I keep it straight, though, and my opponents hate me for making them keep it straight.:smallbiggrin:

[Yarram]

Just roll a d6 for positions lol. Dibs on the people in my team pming each other for 3 days before we start so we can work out a strat.

[Ichneumon]

I remember competing in a debate about the Olympics in china and I had to convince people that we should boycot it and the opposing party said that the olympics had never been boycotted. As soon as they said that I took a list of all the boycots of the olympics in the last 50 or so years and they were dazzled as the list went on and on and on. Factual information is awesome.:smallbiggrin:

[GoC]

The question "Is freedom essential to happiness?" is too vague.
Does it mean one or more freedoms? Complete freedom? The basic shopping list of freedoms present in the modern world?

[Yarram]

The question "Is freedom essential to happiness?" is too vague.
Does it mean one or more freedoms? Complete freedom? The basic shopping list of freedoms present in the modern world?

That's what debating is all about! We have to first define the topic so we can argue about it, and it's the first speakers on both teams jobs to do it.

[GoC]

That's what debating is all about! We have to first define the topic so we can argue about it, and it's the first speakers on both teams jobs to do it.

But with the nigh-infinite possible shopping lists we'd be here all day!
And the question is poorly phrased because as written it only requires a single counterexample.
Anyway, I'm definitely on the Negative side.

[billtodamax]

God, if the first speaker for the affirmative doesn't define every key word in the topic, I'd say he/she isn't doing his/her job properly. Never let negative define anything.

[GoC]

God, if the first speaker for the affirmative doesn't define every key word in the topic, I'd say he/she isn't doing his/her job properly. Never let negative define anything.

If you only address one of the definitions the negative side would just take that as a concession on all the questions with alternate definitions.

[billtodamax]

Actualy, I think the rule in debating is that once something's defined, that's the definition you use in the debate. Or at least it is here. A couple close friends of mine won a debate recently when the first speaker for the other team (affirmative) failed to define space exploration. They had fun with that. :smallamused:

[GoC]

Actualy, I think the rule in debating is that once something's defined, that's the definition you use in the debate. Or at least it is here.
Well the OP hasn't said anything about that so... How do you tell what's a "valid" definition?

[SilverSheriff]

I'll be on the negative team...

[GoC]

I'll be on the negative team...

No space atm.

[SilverSheriff]

No space atm.

damn...I was already working on it...it was going to have jokes too...JOKES!:smallfrown:

[billtodamax]

Well the OP hasn't said anything about that so... How do you tell what's a "valid" definition?

Well I think things like saying (using the example from before): "Space exploration is a field in south east Queensland" Would probably be able to be disputed, or some such thing. I don't think anyone's ever defined something incorrectly in any of the debates I've been in.
EDIT: Completely unrelated, I tend to find negative easier. Negative doesn't have to prove that they're right, they just have to prove that the opposition is wrong.

[GoC]

Well I think things like saying (using the example from before): "Space exploration is a field in south east Queensland" Would probably be able to be disputed, or some such thing. I don't think anyone's ever defined something incorrectly in any of the debates I've been in.
EDIT: Completely unrelated, I tend to find negative easier. Negative doesn't have to prove that they're right, they just have to prove that the opposition is wrong.

Could you define "Space exploration is the act of looking for new things outside Earth's atmosphere"?

[Llama231]

dictionary.com

"Is Freedom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom) Essential (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential) to Happiness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happiness)?"

Extremely broad definitions there.

[Ichneumon]

dictionary.com

"Is Freedom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom) Essential (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential) to Happiness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happiness)?"

Extremely broad definitions there.

Indeed, what kind of freedom? Are we talking total freedom of actions, no limitations whatsoever, extreme liberalism, without any governmental intervention to keep things "in check"?

Personally, I wouldn't find that kind of freedom adviseable, to say the least, but I'll stay open, as a judge.:smallamused:

[Meirnon]

It's not just those 3 keywords. You can also define "is" and "to". The definitions of transitive words (I think that's what they're called) is also a part of the debate. Last year we argued that the definition of "should", an otherwise obscure and ignored part of the resolution, was the past tense of shall, and therefore any inherency the affirmative team could offer was outdated. I can think of ways you could warp "to", but I won't state them here.

Also, the defining won't go on and on... typically, they define the words in the first two speeches, and then justify why their's is better. In my debate, calling someone that their plan doesn't stick to the definitions presented as per the resolution is called a Topicality Violation. As soon as the violation is presented (the Aff doesn't stick to this definition a:___, therefore you cannot vote for them because it skews b:___, where b can be education, fairness in the round, and judges jurisdiction and such), it is taken as a separate issue in the round and there's different ways to get around a T violation. You can prove your definitions are better, you can prove that you meet the negatives definitions, you can prove that their voters (b) don't pertain (which is rather hard with jurisdiction), or you can otherwise negate it by making the other team ignore it in their middle speech so it is considered a conceded issue.

[Yarram]

damn...I was already working on it...it was going to have jokes too...JOKES!:smallfrown:

You wouldn't have got to add new points anyway. The third speakers job is only to summarise previous points, and to rebut what the other team has said.

EDIT:

dictionary.com

"Is Freedom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom) Essential (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential) to Happiness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happiness)?"

Extremely broad definitions there.

Can we totally stop pre-discussion of the topic now? It's wrecking the debate.

[Llama231]

On second thought, if Black_Pants_Guy really wants a spot, I could give my position to him, and potentially participate in a later debate.:smallwink:

[billtodamax]

Could you define "Space exploration is the act of looking for new things outside Earth's atmosphere"?
Yeah, I'd say you could. I think they defined it as only exploring space. Satelites, space stations, asteroid defense measures, none of those were space exploration.

[Verruckt]

so who all is on my team? we need to work out at least a general theme and strategy.

[GoC]

Why exactly does this have to be a school-style debate?:smallconfused:
Can't we come up with our own style and rules?
If not I think I'll cede this spot to Black_Pants_Guy as I disagree with the what appear to be the current debating rules (specifically: Only one post per person, bad arguments allowed, argumenters defining words instead of the person posing the question).

[DamnedIrishman]

TEAMS HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY DECIDED BECAUSE NOBODY WAS CHOOSING:

Affirmative Team:
1st: Amesoeurs
2nd: Llama231
3rd: Dirk Kris

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd: Black_Pants_Guy
The topic is as follows:
"This House proposes that Freedom is essential for happiness."


You may now begin discussion of your topic. You have twenty-four hours to argue amongst yourselves if you wish to switch teams or positions, otherwise you'll go as posted.

A new thread will be started for the debate proper. Prepare your arguments, primary speakers.
This was possibly xanaphia's job, but I'm bored of waiting. HOP TO IT.

[Llama231]

What happened to GoC?

[GoC]

What happened to GoC?

"I cede this spot to Black_Pants_Guy as I disagree with the what appear to be the current debating rules: Only one post per person, bad arguments allowed, argumenters defining words instead of the person posing the question."

[Llama231]

I had the same problem, but I might as well stick around for the heck of it.
*goes off to read the rules a bunch of times in order to figure out exactly what to do*

[Yarram]

Why exactly does this have to be a school-style debate?:smallconfused:
Can't we come up with our own style and rules?
If not I think I'll cede this spot to Black_Pants_Guy as I disagree with the what appear to be the current debating rules (specifically: Only one post per person, bad arguments allowed, argumenters defining words instead of the person posing the question).

School style is better. It's been honed by years and years of testing.

[Ichneumon]

School style is better. It's been honed by years and years of testing.

Please, you could use that argument for school and teaching itself and still it is rather moderate at best in some areas.

[Meirnon]

Comparing school itself to school debate isn't exactly going to work...
Debate is an activity, and school style (which this actually ISN'T, but rather based off of), like Yarram said, has been honed over years. We have nothing better to base it off of. If you wanted, you could make that argument. There are plenty of arguments IN the debate rounds that say that THE debate rounds are inherently disfunctional and that the affirmative team is only limiting everything. A proper argument, though, is that the negative is throwing away tradition, boundaries, and limits which creates an infinitismally large debate that will never be fully covered in a round and that doing so would inherently destroy what debate is: an in-depth argument about a single topic. These are all arguments that you should save for a round :smallwink:.

[Verruckt]

There are plenty of arguments IN the debate rounds that say that THE debate rounds are inherently dysfunctional and that the affirmative team is only limiting everything. A proper argument, though, is that the negative is throwing away tradition, boundaries, and limits which creates an infinitesimally large debate that will never be fully covered in a round and that doing so would inherently destroy what debate is: an in-depth argument about a single topic. These are all arguments that you should save for a round :smallwink:.

Indeed, hence the Pirate Debaters I mentioned earlier. A couple Policy debaters who debate in full pirate garb, run their entire case that Policy is an inherently limiting elitist format (which to be honest it is) and that to judge this round would be a violation of the intellectual rights of those not participating and harmfully limit discussion of the issue. As such they close by saying that the Judge cannot ethically complete their ballot, and if they attempt to do so the Pirates will forcibly take it from them as they leave the room. Good Times.

[Faulty]

I think I'm gonna back out.

[Meirnon]

*Hi-Fives Verruckt* Policy Debate FTW!:smallbiggrin:

[GoC]

Comparing school itself to school debate isn't exactly going to work...
Debate is an activity, and school style (which this actually ISN'T, but rather based off of), like Yarram said, has been honed over years. We have nothing better to base it off of. If you wanted, you could make that argument. There are plenty of arguments IN the debate rounds that say that THE debate rounds are inherently disfunctional and that the affirmative team is only limiting everything. A proper argument, though, is that the negative is throwing away tradition, boundaries, and limits which creates an infinitismally large debate that will never be fully covered in a round and that doing so would inherently destroy what debate is: an in-depth argument about a single topic. These are all arguments that you should save for a round :smallwink:.
An internet forum is a very different medium to a table (or whatever is used for school debating)*. What is optimal in school may not be optimal in most other circumstances.
Also you've got a false dichotomy here. There are alternatives to both "no rules" and "restrictive, sub-optimal rules". Rules can be modified with less restrictive limits.
Attempting something new(-ish) is the road to discovery and knowledge which is exactly what debates are supposed to help.

* No limits on thinking times, unlimited access to outside material while in the debate, plenty of time, the ability to go over what has been said before, ect.
Each of these could change the optimal debating method. There's also the fact that a school debate serves a specific purpose (one would like to think that it improves oral communication and presentation), our purpose here is likely to be very different.

[Meirnon]

I do see the purpose here as much like what we're supposed to see the purpose of debate in a high school level...
We're trying to argue an issue in a structured environment with set rules that makes it an activity to reach the desired ends. Desired ends being a vote by the judges on a resolution based on said arguments and maybe learn something.

The best way we can do this in a way that is efficient, fair, displaying of skill, and otherwise reasonably possible is with a structure that is tried and true, albeit with a deviation we have made for the internet community (larger teams, a few less speeches, different limits to speeches). I do believe that what you're arguing has some merit, but you misinterpret limits that guide the round to a predictable course with deviation for argumentation (like I said, any round can quickly turn into an argument about debate structure itself) as a limit on freedom in and out of round and ultimately detracting from what debate is supposed to accomplish.

To satisfy you, I want you to look at what's going on besides your own moderately justified arguments: people are eager for this, they want to argue and stay to the rules, and it's ultimately going to be a fair argument in any case where the vote is going to be based on the arguments made and not bias or an independent interpretation of what a debate round is. The fact that we're actually going through with it is justification enough to go with it as it is.

[GoC]

I do see the purpose here as much like what we're supposed to see the purpose of debate in a high school level...
We're trying to argue an issue in a structured environment with set rules that makes it an activity to reach the desired ends. Desired ends being a vote by the judges on a resolution based on said arguments and maybe learn something.
So you believe high school debating has a different intent from the one I gave?
Do you have any evidence that the differences I mentioned in my previous post will not change the optimal?


The best way we can do this in a way that is efficient, fair, displaying of skill, and otherwise reasonably possible is with a structure that is tried and true, albeit with a deviation we have made for the internet community (larger teams, a few less speeches, different limits to speeches).
Why do you believe that this debating system has been optimized for fairness? Or efficiency?
We aren't even in agreement about what the goals of debating are so how can you say that the school method has greater efficiency?
Surely a system that disallows or penalizes fallacies will be better at accomplishing goals such as "reaching a conclusion" or "demonstrating skill at logical analysis"?
Proper question phrasing will also increase the speed at which a conclusion is reached and reduce the number of required side-roads (one of the problems with debates is how easy it is to get sidetracked)


I do believe that what you're arguing has some merit, but you misinterpret limits that guide the round to a predictable course with deviation for argumentation (like I said, any round can quickly turn into an argument about debate structure itself) as a limit on freedom in and out of round and ultimately detracting from what debate is supposed to accomplish.
The limits of one post per person and three posts automatically detract from freedom.


To satisfy you, I want you to look at what's going on besides your own moderately justified arguments: people are eager for this, they want to argue and stay to the rules, and it's ultimately going to be a fair argument in any case where the vote is going to be based on the arguments made and not bias or an independent interpretation of what a debate round is. The fact that we're actually going through with it is justification enough to go with it as it is.
They are eager for debate. But do they specifically want a debate with these rules? For reasons other than staying in their comfort zone?
What guidelines are the judges being given? What exactly are they grading?

[Meirnon]

So you believe high school debating has a different intent from the one I gave?
Do you have any evidence that the differences I mentioned in my previous post will not change the optimal?
No, but you must realize that we're doing our best with what we have right now.



Why do you believe that this debating system has been optimized for fairness? Or efficiency?
Because it works and has been around for, what, a hundred years?


We aren't even in agreement about what the goals of debating are so how can you say that the school method has greater efficiency?
The goals of debating, as defined by "debate" itself, is to reach a conclusion based on a question.


Surely a system that disallows or penalizes fallacies will be better at accomplishing goals such as "reaching a conclusion" or "demonstrating skill at logical analysis"? and reaching a conclusion is the point of debate.


Proper question phrasing will also increase the speed at which a conclusion is reached and reduce the number of required side-roads (one of the problems with debates is how easy it is to get sidetracked)
The limits of one post per person and three posts automatically detract from freedom.
Then leave the rules as they are. Let definitions be made in debate rounds instead of limiting them out of round. You preach freedom, but don't want it.


They are eager for debate. But do they specifically want a debate with these rules? For reasons other than staying in their comfort zone?
What guidelines are the judges being given? What exactly are they grading?
If they didn't want a debate with these rules, they wouldn't have signed up for it. Judges are guided by the debaters arguments, being told to choose what they believe is right with what's argued as their reference points. Debate's supposed to be in a vacuum, where you contrast the two arguments on the agreed upon "status quo". We're grading who makes the "status quo" better. In this case, status quo would probably be the interpretation of what's considered happiness. Whoever makes the most stirring, logical, or otherwise believable argument wins.

At this point, I'm not sure I can convince you of anything. :smalltongue:
I, myself, am feeling very dispassionate about this argument because it's really just an argument against whether we should even be having this debate. I believe in live and let live, so if there are people willing to stick to these rules and to debate about what we've set up to debate about (which as I remember, there was a vote on this), then why not let it happen? I'm pretty tired right now, and my thoughts at the moment are jumbled by my father watching a movie with the volume all the way up, so I'm not sure I made my thoughts entirely clear, but I do believe that with an inquisitive mind that I believe you have and are fully capable of utilizing to see the point in my issue and to actually think from my perspective, I should be understood. I'm going to finish up with a favorite quote of mine (and hopefully all debaters).

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it

[GoC]

At this point, I'm not sure I can convince you of anything. :smalltongue:
It would require a far more cunning set of arguments than the ones presented so far.:smallwink:
I propose that the next debate be "Is the optimal set of debating rules for this internet forum (where optimal is the one that reaches the correct conclusion in the shortest possible time) the same as the rules for a high school debate?".:smallamused:
I'm sorry to say but it's been rather underwhelming compared to what I expected from a seasoned debater.:smalltongue:


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it
A principle I believe I live by.:smallsmile:

Well, I'll be watching from the sidelines. Carry on!

[Meirnon]

Oooh, going for the cheap shots, eh? :smalltongue:
GoC, I honestly like you. You seem to be the kind of person that I could get along with in an alternate environment. As for the seasoned debater, I'm not so much seasoned as I am talented. I have only a little over a year of experience, a coach that hasn't found the balance between helping and carrying his debaters (so he pretty much goes on the more skimpy end of helping us), NO DEBATE CAMP AT ALL, and I've still gotten 7th place in one of the roughest states for one of the roughest intellectual sports there is. I'm simply not in any condition right now to want or effectively debate, especially not with someone who is intelligent enough to actually make sense. I'm not used to that, actually.

Anyways, my point being, is that while I'm glad you're finally letting this go, I don't believe that we should sully any possible friendship (or even a friendly rivalry, if we must) because you insist on calling me out on any lack of any words to convince you with at the moment. In fact, I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say with this at the moment... I should probably be in bed, actually. Every time I get any semblance of a deeper thought, I forget it:smallfrown:

Anyways, I do believe that this should be closed, and the debate, in full with rules and the decided upon topic, should continue, and I'll judge to the best of my abilities.

[billtodamax]

Wall o' text alert! Not reading that.

[DamnedIrishman]

Amesoeurs appears to have been warded off by the wall of text. We're short a debator again...

[Llama231]

Wait, are we debating debating now?

[Ichneumon]

Wait, are we debating debating now?

Not as far as I know.:smalleek:

[Meirnon]

Okay, it's been WELL past 24 hours. I strongly suggest that if you guys wanna debate for real, the 1st Affirmative begins soon. That's you, Amesoeurs.

[xanaphia]

TEAMS HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY DECIDED BECAUSE NOBODY WAS CHOOSING:

Affirmative Team:
1st: Amesoeurs
2nd: Llama231
3rd: Dirk Kris

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd: Black_Pants_Guy
The topic is as follows:
"This House proposes that Freedom is essential for happiness."


You may now begin discussion of your topic. You have twenty-four hours to argue amongst yourselves if you wish to switch teams or positions, otherwise you'll go as posted.

A new thread will be started for the debate proper. Prepare your arguments, primary speakers.
This was possibly xanaphia's job, but I'm bored of waiting. HOP TO IT.

Yes, officially approved. Sorry for the delay, but I was at a folk festival.

Anyways, let's go.

Hey, give them more time than 24 hours. How about till Thursday. Post sequentially, with first speaker starting sometime on Thursday. I'll start the thread on Wednesday, and you speakers will start posting on thursday. It will be called GITP Debating Competition Auditorium.

[DamnedIrishman]

I think I'm gonna back out.

Am I the only person who noticed this?

Yeesh.

[Meirnon]

I believe so.
Also, I do believe that thursday is a funny day to debate... it's actually Pirate Thursday for my gaming guild. We all speak like pirates :smallbiggrin:

[Dirk Kris]

Notice: I will be away Friday and Saturday, so I need the Thursday slot, or else it will be Sunday before I present my arguement.

[Verruckt]

I am really terribly sorry about this y'all but I really didn't know until today what was going on. I'll be gone from this Thursday till Monday of next week, out of town for a wedding and away from reliable intertube access. If I can still deliver the second negative come next Tuesday I'd be more than happy too, but if you need something earlier I'll have to bow out.

Again, terribly sorry if this mucks everything up.

[Ichneumon]

Am I the only person who noticed this?

Yeesh.

I noticed it, but failed in finding an acceptable way to reply.

[xanaphia]

To all debators: Please PM me your speeches beforehand. If you can't make it, I'll PM them to someone else on your team.

OK, so Amesouers (I spelt that right first time:smallbiggrin:) has backed out. I'm going to PM BlackPantsGuy to fill that post.

[xanaphia]

New development: I can't find a first speaker affirmative. If anyone could please post and PM me to tell me that they'll do it.

[xanaphia]

GAThraawn has kindly agreed to step in as first speaker affirmative. The debate will take place on Monday.

[GoC]

Oooh, going for the cheap shots, eh? :smalltongue:
:smalltongue:
You seem like a fine chap (and an intelligent one) and I'm sorry i didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. I look forward to future conversations and how this debate will turn out.:smallsmile:

[Llama231]

GAThraawn has kindly agreed to step in as first speaker affirmative. The debate will take place on Monday.

YAY THRAAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^.^

[Yarram]

I'm here... But I'll be away for two days. I'll try and get internet (I've got myu laptop with me)

[GAThraawn]

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, missed the other thread. I'll move over there, because you have such a nice intro posted and everything.

[xanaphia]

Um, change of plan. Let the debate be here.

[Llama231]

So, what day to I need to post?

[Verruckt]

Back and raring to go, ready when you need me.

Yarram, please PM me at some point so I can better reinforce your arguments.

[Yarram]

I'm back, and patiently waiting. =D

[Meirnon]

Tired, cold, and bitter... I think I'm ready to be a judge, so let's get this rollin'

[Llama231]

Well, I am going to be out for a while starting July first, so at this rate, I will need to step out.

[Ichneumon]

So, what happened to the debate?:smallconfused:

[Meirnon]

I think it's a little something like musical chairs... it's just no one wants the chair cause it's covered in honey and there's a bear in the shadows.

[Llama231]

I assume that the first negative is supposed to go next?

[Yarram]

First affirmative goes first =P

[Llama231]

But it already went? Oh, he needs to move it over here.

[DamnedIrishman]

The debate is underway. Now awaiting first negative. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115522)

Yarram, you're up. Go go go!

[Meirnon]

PIE!:smallbiggrin:

[Llama231]

Great, the debate finally gets back going. I am up next, I believe, so I will get to work on mine when I get some time (around noon mountain time, whatever that is everywhere else), and likely post soon after then.

[Llama231]

Posted. I will be PMing my teammates for clarification.

[DamnedIrishman]

Verruck, you are up.

[Llama231]

Well, I randomly decided to put the other speeches this word counter for measure, and found that neither of the previous ones to mine had even 900 word (rather, about 850 and 650). It this a problem, or can it be overlooked?

[DamnedIrishman]

Well, I randomly decided to put the other speeches this word counter for measure, and fond that neither of the previous ones to mine had even 900 word (rather, about 850 and 650). It this a problem, or can it be overlooked?

Well, you'll possibly lose a few point for method. The rules:


The marking system is broken down like this:
40 points Matter: What you say. How correct and intelligent you are.
40 points Manner: How you say it. Writing style, wittiness.
20 points Method: How well you conform to the rules of debating.

So don't expect a mark of 100 if you're outside the boundary. But nobody will be penalised heavily for just one error.

[Yarram]

You guys are playing pretty dangerous. Have you read This? (http://www.schoolsdebate.com/docs/definitions.asp) Look up on Tautology.

[Verruckt]

Sorry to lag behind here y'all but my 4 week summer class is coming to a close and my final is tomorrow. You can expect to see the second negative up by Thursday or Friday at the latest. Thanks for bearing with me :smallfrown:

[Serpentine]

Hey guys, did you end up getting someone to do the prizes? If not, I've got an idea - inspired by my dad's Toastmasters Award.

[DamnedIrishman]

Hey guys, did you end up getting someone to do the prizes? If not, I've got an idea - inspired by my dad's Toastmasters Award.

No, we didn't. If you've got an idea, then we'd be glad of it.

[Verruckt]

Posted my bit! It's a bit small but I think it's carefully leveled and weighted. Sorry for making y'all wait so long but school's been hectic.

On a side note please please don't take personal offence to anything I've stated in there, years of congress debate have taught me to argue growling and with my fangs bared so that's what I do.

[DamnedIrishman]

Dirk Kris, you're up. Gogo a-gogo.

[Meirnon]

Ewww, Congress? Where I'm from that's where you all sit around a table and propose plans... We hate those kids. Congress debate shouldn't be called debate because it's more of a speech event.

Maybe it's different here? All I know that once you do Policy, your mind gets fried by nuklear war scenarios, racism, sexism, topicality, and kritikal affirmatives.

Speaking of which, I got a FREE EFFING RIDE SCHOLARSHIP to debate camp. The guy who coordinates debate here wanted me to join so much he offered a to let me go to his camp for free. :smallbiggrin:

[Verruckt]

Ewww, Congress? Where I'm from that's where you all sit around a table and propose plans... We hate those kids. Congress debate shouldn't be called debate because it's more of a speech event.

Maybe it's different here? All I know that once you do Policy, your mind gets fried by nuklear war scenarios, racism, sexism, topicality, and kritikal affirmatives.

Speaking of which, I got a FREE EFFING RIDE SCHOLARSHIP to debate camp. The guy who coordinates debate here wanted me to join so much he offered a to let me go to his camp for free. :smallbiggrin:

Well done on the scholarship!

And yes, congress out in California is very different from what you describe. There is a speech element to it because if you're good (like me :smalltongue:) you can actually start to sway the room. The debate element is certainly present too however, and depending on the round it can be alternately hilarious or absolutely vicious. It can get as crazy as suggesting that all armed Raider fans be deployed into Afghanistan (an amendment to a draft bill that I actually managed to get passed much to my coach’s chagrin) or as nasty as a girl returning from the podium in tears when she presented some bad evidence and the rest of the house went after her like rabid jackals (and I won’t lie, I took a hunk off the carcass too). It can be a lot of fun especially when you get to know you fellow congressional debaters and it almost becomes you vs. the judges as much as anything else.

[Meirnon]

Thank you :smallsmile:

I never liked tearing into people for their ignorance. Rather, I enjoy critiquing them and telling them exactly WHAT to do. You won't make people better if you don't teach them :smallwink:.

[Yarram]

So yeah? Waiting on who?

[Meirnon]

Dark Kris it looks like.

[Llama231]

I have returned, and it seems that we are awaiting BPG.

[Meirnon]

Whoo, at debate camp right now. Prepping for the new season.

Topic
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States

Fun.:smallbiggrin:

[Llama231]

Who won? Affirmative, because negative never posted everything? Or is it still going?

As for a debate topic (Less Serious): Smoking should be illegal.
Or: Tropes are an effective way of analyzing literature.
Also: V is male/female.
Lastly: Round waste baskets are more effective and efficient than square/rectangular ones.

Also, we are not supposed to do real world politics, so we should avoid them...

[Meirnon]

Wha? The topic is year-long. We're just prepping it with all the files. Right now I'm partnered with someone who has significantly less experience than me but seems to be competent. Rather be partnered with my little brother...

Anyways, we haven't debated yet. We're getting our cases ready.

[Meirnon]

So... anyone know why BPG hasn't posted his argument yet?

[Yarram]

No Idea... Maybe I should bump him.

[SilverSheriff]

because I'm going through a really **** phase in my life.:smallannoyed:

[Meirnon]

Oh, jeez, sorry BPG. :smalleek:

If you need to talk about it, there's the Depression thread.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6671256#post6671256
Everyone there does their best to make you feel better.