The Great Debate!

[kpjam]

Okies, Kwok volunteered! Not that great, but it's better than nothing ^^;

Interesting.....

[Carthrat]

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.

[Rezantis]

. . .

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.

[Carthrat]

Eh. Eheh.

"God Is Dead"

And affirmitive goes first, for the unknowing amongst you.

[Rezantis]

Ehh.  You gave me the call, and I decided I wanted to argue negative.  Nyah!  :P

[Dracos]

*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 ^^*

[kpjam]

Eh. Eheh.

"God Is Dead"

And affirmitive goes first, for the unknowing amongst you.

*Walks away smirking*

[kpjam]

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!

[Dracos]

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

[Carthrat]

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.

[kpjam]

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.

[Dracos]

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

[calendar]

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.  ^^;

[Rezantis]

Goodie-goodie.  You get a first hand experience of my organizational capabilities.  ^^;;;;

[Carthrat]

Well, if you say so, Drac. You know *way* more about this kinda thing than me.

* Carthrat likes Rez's sig!