Yes! And We're looking for Debators!
Half the forum are professional arguers: lets take it that one step further.
The Topic is a Hidden Topic..
Two positions are open on both sides.
Rules: 1500 word limit on posts.
You have to post within 24 hours of the last post. Extensions will be given if asked for.
Two teams of Three, and... you don't get to pick which side! Nyahaha!
First come first served, and you work out positions within your team.
Four! Slots! Open!
'Rat
--
--
vs.
Rez
--
--
Oh, you can just *tell* who'd win that one.
C'mon, peeps... Rat badly needs a hand here... ^^
Judging will be done by the forum in general, I'll put up a poll once we're done. Heheheheh.
I dunno.... Odds are I'd be flung on Rat's team which gives me a disadvantageous ally. Hyum..
Sure...what the heck...IF you extend it to three days time. I happen to have classes and can't risk a 24 hour period with this sort of thing.
Fearless Leader
Has the topic been set?
I know it's 'hidden' but does it exist or is there a list.
Also, what if both sides decide on the same position, is another topic picked?
Probably doesn't have the time to get involved, but thinks Rat could use a little help.
Hmm... I'm in, if anyone wants me. Not the greatest debator, but I'm excellent at diffusing arguments.
^^;
Oh, gee. I can just see it. If I'm on Rez's team, I'll egg him on, and if I'm on 'Rat's... I'll mess with Rez's head. Of course, he'd be in professional debating mode, so I don't know how well that'd work. ^^; O-oh, dear.
Anyway, although I'm not the greatest debator, I'm not bad at all.
KP: Yes, the topic has been set, and Rat and I know who's arguing for and against.
Calendar: I don't have a professional debator mode. ^^
Rez, you are a definite wanna-be debator.
Count me as tentative until more specifics about timing can be made. It sounds interesting, but as my lack of any talking indicates, my schedule is pretty busy. ^^
Diffusing arguments? Why'd you wanna do that? o_O
And it's nice to see that everyone has such great faith in me. I'm not *that* bad that I count as a negative >_<
It's not that you are bad.
It's merely respect for Rez. In a debate, you are only as strong as your weakest links. ^_~ It's why I loved doing solo over team stuff. Team only works if everyone is at the same level basically or if you only have one speaker.
*shrugs*
Fearless leader
Eh. Don't I know what you mean.
One more slot, people! To further entice you, it's a *religious* topic!
/me blinks.
Eheheheh... Ooh, I'm glad I'm in this one. I have much to say for and against religion.
Sadly, it is my best topic, mostly because I read up on anti-religious and religious points.
Eheheheh...
Oh, I forgot.
Rez: You better hope you have a debator mode... because if you don't, and I'm on the other team, then I know exactly how to trip you up. Of course, I don't have a debator mode, but no one trips me up when I'm debating religion. ^^ Of course, you've never tried to trip me up, so we'd have to see how that works.
O_o
o_O
O_O
o_o
It must be remembered that the audience will be voting...
*Smiles and folds hands in Gendo Fashion*
No one has answered my question.
Fearless Leader
You haven't asked a question.
*smiles inscrutably*
Quote from: Rezantis on October 09, 2002, 06:55:14 PM
You haven't asked a question.
*smiles inscrutably*
*coughs*
He did mention something about timing...
also, there are quite a few things that should be clarified, like how post will work, time-limits for answers, are answers given by a spokesperson for the team or is at round-robin type alternate answer... I'm sure I've missed some.
/me thought he answered it, but it seems he didn't.
Erm. Three days? Not a problem, though I'd rather keep it down.
*kicks Rat* Answer the rest.
KP: Yeah, but he didn't ask anything, technically... ^^
Pushes his glasses up.
"I thought you knew how to read between the lines and notice an obvious question of order."
Smirks at rez.
Fearless Leader
Has no mercy
Of course I can, but I don't see any need to unnecessarily complicate the issue - as you are wont to do. State your questions plainly, and you'll receive plain answers in return.
^_^
*laughs*
Instead you would prefer chaos when we attempt this? A disorganized team attempt on both sides as neither know what is going on, what is valid and what isn't?
Fearless leader
Ah, Dracos, you would sow the seeds of confusion... interested as I am, this is not my idea.
It's the idea of Carthrat... so while I answer what I am able, the call on that which I am not entirely sure on must - by courtesy - go to him. :)
I think I have to turn your question back at you, Dracos... perhaps you should be phrasing your questions in plain language, making it far simpler for everyone involved?
Well, Drac, if that's what the people want.
Is that what you want, people? A stupid, chaotic, and quite entertaining debate? Or an intelligent and ordered, yet still quite entertaining debate?
Rezantis: Ah but my friend KP already did such, and given it is the third such statement of the question, the necessity of specifically stating it all for everyone isn't there. Verily though, thy dodge amuses me. All that is necessary in your post is a "It's Rat's Decision."
Carthrat: Well....we have this nifty thing called a Poll on our forum. Last I looked, it was still there. Maybe if you actually don't want this thread getting spammed beyond recognition...or not getting much feedback at all, you should start an easy poll. Either way...
You've already started down a path claiming 'rules', with limits on the days, participants, etc.
Fearless Leader
There's a poll option? News to me o_O
I'm still waiting on another participant, and it *will* be an orderly debate, anyway.
Of course, once we're done, people can feel free to argue the point as much as they like. ^_^
Dracos, my esteemed colleague, I'm gratified by your amusement... but I think, perhaps, you need to reread the thread; at the time when you stated that your question had not been answered, KP had not yet done anything of the sort.
Also, you need to do your research better; the poll option is currently only available to administrators - something that could have been apparent with a slightly less cursory examination on your part.
Ahem.
Rat, get off your ass and lay down the rules already, or nobody is going to take you seriously. ^_^
Rules! In greater detail!
Two sides of three people each. You organize your debators into First Speaker, Second Speaker, and Third Speaker. Or Writer. Whatever.
The sides are, naturally, Affirmitive and Negative. Affirmitive goes first, then negative, then affirmitive, etc. In speaker order.
You 'speak' by submitting a 1000-1500 word essay on the topic which supports your argument, and hopefully demolishes your opponents.
The first speaker for the affirmitive kicks off the debate, and the next speaker has three days to respond. We take it from there.
The Judging shall be done at the End of the Debate by the Forum Itself. I'm sure Drac will have rectified the Polling Problem by then.
Won't be rectified, this being deliberate and not a mistake in the configuration. Ask an admin to post a poll for you. :)
Okies, Kwok volunteered! Not that great, but it's better than nothing ^^;
Teams to be decided tomorrow, and one additional rule.
You *can't* confer with your accosiates about the debate after it starts. We have to work of the honor basis for this, but since we're all such swell people, I'm sure it'll work just fine.
Beforehand, though, talk all you want.
*Sweatdrops*
No, it isn't better then nothing, really.
Fearless Leader
Quote from: Carthrat on October 15, 2002, 08:27:25 AM
Okies, Kwok volunteered! Not that great, but it's better than nothing ^^;
Interesting.....
Ok, Teams are as follows.
(Affirmitive)
'Rat
Drac
KP
<->
(Negative)
Rez
Calendar
Kwok
Don't look at me. Rez picked the sides. ^^
The Debate will start in about a week. Three day writing period.
. . .
I should never, ever, EVER let you try running ANYTHING, I swear. >< Rat, you're forgetting a couple of things that are really, really important.
I'll even give you a hint.
T-O-P-I-C.
Eh. Eheh.
"God Is Dead"
And affirmitive goes first, for the unknowing amongst you.
Ehh. You gave me the call, and I decided I wanted to argue negative. Nyah! :P
*double blinks*
*THEN ROARS IN LAUGHTER*
This Topic?
*LAUGHS*
Fearless Leader
*Happens to have six books on this subject under his bed...now to use them...or make something up on the fly ^^*
Quote from: Carthrat on October 16, 2002, 04:22:00 AM
Eh. Eheh.
"God Is Dead"
And affirmitive goes first, for the unknowing amongst you.
*Walks away smirking*
I just wanted to add, I'm having ISP problems at home, so I can only acess from work right now.
It _should_ be fixed Friday, but if it's not, and no one sees me, you'll know why.
kp: who will be playing Neverwinter Nights because his new computer can actually handle it!
Chatting with KP, a few questions arose... Given this is a limited debate, it's important to know the limitations.
A few things I'm currently assuming, tell me if they are false:
A)Tacit Consents are in effect. Ignore an argument and it's assumed to be agreed with. No coming back in the third round to attack an argument you ignored in the first and they drew forth. You can attack the extension on the argument, but the original premise that's accepted it taken as truth for the debate.
B)The Affirmative lays out the definitions of the debate, the negative can choose to accept them or explain why they are invalid and offer a more appropriate definition...but only on the first speaking. The only time it would continue beyond the first 'speaking' round is if the affirmative rechallenges the new proposed counterdefinitions... after the second round, anything on this should be closed...it would be inappropriate to have def arguments at the conclusion.
A subpremise on that is of course that the affirmative is obligated to offer fair and valid definitions. A dictionary definition takes precedence over a definition out of head or unmentioned. An opposing dictionary definition is only advanced with accompaning explaination on why a new def is needed to debate. Yes, this is sounding more complex then it really is, but the first necessity for any intellectual discussion (AKA a debate) is agreement upon the vocabulary. Without this we are just arguing meaningless semantics.
C)Any evidence and arguments must be originated in the first speaking. The only reason for the addition of new evidence would be to rebut the evidence/argument of the opposing side...not to draw forth a new argument or supplement your original arguments. This is mainly to keep from having stupid shit like "New argument in the last round of debate... ooh, I forgot this evidence bit".
I think that's it. Those at least are my major concerns, already intend to be playing with them in effect, so need to know if they aren't.
Fearless Leader
Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed that new evidence can be brought forward in the second round as well.
Quote from: Carthrat on October 16, 2002, 08:42:00 PM
Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed that new evidence can be brought forward in the second round as well.
I'm not very knowlegeable in formal debating, but I think the saqsfeguard Drac mentioned are practices that should be agreed upon for this debate. I can see instances when new evidence can be supplied in the second round, but with just three speaking that would turn this into a bit of a mess.
The question is a bit general, but there is no reason that all evidence, definitions can't be displayed in the first round.
The one distinction is that rebuttal evidence is allowed later, which can be used to try and sure up points that were missed in the openings.
But anyway, it would be nice to hear from the other side.
In the types of debate I am most familiar with (Those being Lincoln Douglas style debates or Team (2 on 2) debates) the only instance in which evidence is allowed in round two is to counter evidence brought up in round one. It cannot be used as a basis to extend your argumentation on your own points (Because otherwise it should have been brought forth originally to allow the other team a chance to see it and counter it) only to counter their own evidence. The reasons for this should be obvious, the most obvious of them being that we don't want to be bringing counter evidence up in third speech.
I know evidence one way or another isn't going to play a huge part in this debate, but it still should be checked before we start ^^;
Fearless Leader
Hm... interesting topic. And I'm on Rez's team! XD
...and Kwok's...
Rez's team! Ahahaha!
Ahem. I think it's safe to assume with Kwok and I, Rez is definitely in charge. ^^;
Goodie-goodie. You get a first hand experience of my organizational capabilities. ^^;;;;
Well, if you say so, Drac. You know *way* more about this kinda thing than me.
/me likes Rez's sig!
*blinks*
I thought ye excelled in strategy Rez? *Has already a point value benefit/loss strategy for not only his entire team...but yours as well ^^*
I assume we aren't posting any official order... because it would be unfair to Rez's team.
Fearless Leader
Drac's team. Where you're a number, not a member.
Well, no, we don't. Unless Rez *wants* too.
Drac... I have no idea where you got that idea. I'm strictly an amateur. :P
I think we established *that* when you picked Kwok.
^^
I meant in general strategy, not in just debate. Certainly I should have more experience here but even an amuteur should be able to see the best line possibilities for your team.
Fearless leader
RAT...KP! CHATROOM TODAY IF WE CAN
Ok, I'm setting a start date.
Sunday, 27th October. Upon this date, the first speaker of the Affirmitive will post...
...and it goes on from there. Three day intervals, no collaboration between associates after the debate has started.
And the word limit is 1500. I've devised a nasty punishment, too.
For each word over the limit, a member of the opposing team gets to remove any word he chooses from your piece.
*nods* Try not to screw up.
Can't be done, at least not be me...
I've got a lot to do between now and then. And this is at the bottom of the priorities list. ^^
Hmm.
That sucks.
I'll either knock it back further... but Rez, if you can, find a substitute.
Suggestion:
I think several of us have a thanksgiving break coming up. How about doing it then?
Fearless leader
I don't think Rez has a Thanksgiving Day break.
But maybe Rez could tell us when his schedule will be clearer, since this was originally billed as Rez v. Rat with helpers^?^
Ogata-chan?
^^; I never looked at it that way. If I did, I would change it so it's Rez vs. Rat... in the boxing ring.
Personally, I don't mind too much when it starts, though I prefer the sooner the better...
Rez, when are you free? ^^
Quote from: Carthrat on October 24, 2002, 03:32:36 AM
^^; I never looked at it that way. If I did, I would change it so it's Rez vs. Rat... in the boxing ring.
'Rat
--
--
vs.
Rez
--
--
Oh, you can just *tell* who'd win that one.
Not that it can't construed as something other than Rez v. Rat with helpers^^
Must... restrain... reply... can't.. argue... over... something... so... pointless...
we need the practice^^
Actually, in foresight, it's generally important merely to slam irrelevent arguments as exactly that and move on, rather then try and lower oneself to ripping them thoroughly apart when the opponent will likely agree and drop the shakey argument for their stronger pieces. Knowing where to attack to be effective is important.
Fearless Leader