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? 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? 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? 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" .

[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.

[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.

Spoiler

Show

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.