 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Master Debators! |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101  Posts: 421/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| Let's fucking do it! Ok, here's the deal. I'm going to start this new debate contest/battle thingy granted people show an interest in it. Seeings how we STILL have no Political Forum (not to mention any talk or final word on it) I thought it might be kind of nice to do this. I call this Master Debators. (Get it? Bwa haw hawwww....) It works like this: I will be the main person behind it. I'll pick a subject to debate about. For instance, let's use "Firearms" as an example. Now if we just let everyone go at it, we would end up with a huge clusterfuck like we usually do. That's why there will only be TWO people debating. One on one side of the issue (pro-gun) and one on the other end (anti-gun). After we pick the two people, we'll decide who goes first. Whoever does will post their first arguement/their stance on the issue. Then person two will do the same thing and make arguements against the first post. Then the first user will offer a rebuttal to that and so on... Each person has a certain amount of posts before the debate is over. I still haven't decided yet. I need some help here trying to determine a good number. 3? 5? 7? After that number is up, each user will get one post to offer their closing statement/final arguement. Wrap it up in one neat little post. Note, these two people are the ONLY ones who can participate in the debate. After the debate is over, then all other users will be able to commentate on how the debate went, their personals observations/feelings on what was said, and their unbiased opinion on how each debator handled themselves. And by unbiased I mean judging based on their debate skills, and not their stance. For instance, if you're pro-gun but you thought the anti-gun guy kicked a lot of ass in the debate, then let that be your judgement. And while that's going on, you'll PM me your vote for who you think should win. (It's a competition, otherwise it would be kind of pointless.) And after the voting time limit is up, the winner will be announced. If this is sucessful, maybe we could have tournaments or something to that affect. Oh, and you could keep a win/loss record as well. If you have any better ideas or tweaks to make this better, then let me know. For instance, I was thinking of having a moderator of the debate of sorts. For instance, the moderator (being unbiased on the issue, not necessarily undecided) will be the one to enforce the rules. Maybe even ask the questions between rounds. For example, instead of just saying "Firearms, go!" then letting the debators say whatever they want about it, the moderator could come up with a starting question such as: "Do you feel the second amendment accurately portrays the way gun laws should be today? Or do you think it's outdated based on today's society?" or... "Some claim that all guns should be banned for personal use. Agree or disagree?" You get the picture. Hopefully this will kick off right because it could make for some interesting reading material. And future topics could include "Democrat or Republican: Which is better for the country?" or "War in Iraq: Very Unnecessary or Inevitable/Unavoidable Conflict?" and it doesn't always have to be so serious. We could even have a three way debate going on such as "Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft: Who's the best in our age of gaming?". Rules thus far: 1. Personal flaming is an automatic disqualification. I'm talking blatent hardcore flaming here. Like "Yeah? Well you're a fucking douchebag moron!". Slight and minor jabs here and there are ok though and makes the debate more entertaining. The following would be perfectly ok: "You know, you're just like a Democrat. Always throwing useless statistics and dodging the main issue at hand." Something like that. 2. You can use information from anywhere but if your opponent requests a source, you MUST come up with one. That way, people just don't go making up false information. 3. I'm not going to say spelling and grammer count, but it would certainly make you look better. 4. Must stay on the issue at hand. Shouldn't be that much of a problem though. But you know how we can get.  Think of any more? Let me know. I think that's about it for now. That's the basic groundwork. Let me know if you'd be interested in doing this or if you have any input on how to make it better. |
|||
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36  Posts: 55/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| This sounds kinda interesting. When does this start? I'd like to be a part of it! | |||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101 Posts: 423/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Cthulhu That all depends on how many people would be interested in it. |
|||
|
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36 Posts: 56/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| Well, I know FallenWarrior would be in. Chris loves to debate and argue about things. I'll see if I can get in touch with him. | |||
Avardo Cheep-cheep Level: 23  Posts: 178/184 EXP: 61004 For next: 6719 Since: 03-15-04 From: England Since last post: 547 days Last activity: 149 days |
| ||
I'll sign up  .... I'm good at making arguments, and quite persistent to (As you may have seen around on the board  )...One query though... What if the two people both have the same views? D you double check beforehand? Or do you just say it's a double victory for that point if they fight for it? |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 99/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Stupid idea. Two people? There's already a way you can do that, and it's called "private messaging". I mean, what's the point in publically showing a debate if you have no feedback in it? Are we supposed to convince the participants what the "good" arguments are? What if the participant is an idiot? This would just bug me... having debate threads and not being "allowed" to participate. I'd prefer it didn't happen, because there's really no point. We can debate about debating. Yay. (edited by hhallahh on 04-20-04 07:18 PM) |
|||
|
Cymoro PATRICK DUFFY WILL LASER YOUR SOUL   Level: 67  Posts: 288/2216 EXP: 2549743 For next: 43129 Since: 03-15-04 From: Cymoro Gaming Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| I'm in. I'd really like to bring my shotgun back. A few rounds of common sense, coming up. |
|||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101 Posts: 425/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh hllahhalhalha, you're living proof that people sometimes don't read the entire thread. Anyway, Avardo, yes. We would make sure that the two people would be on opposing viewpoints. |
|||
|
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36 Posts: 58/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| Alright! Looks like there are some people interested. How many do you think will be neccesary to start? | |||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 527/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| You know that we are argumentative bitches lesser evil me? | |||
|
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36 Posts: 59/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| What? I'm not sure I got that one. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 100/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Legion You get to comment on the debate itself once it's concluded. That's really not very much. Ah well. I still think it's a lame idea, because it turns debates into semantic duels rather than clashes of ideas... but I'll give you some input: 1) You'd need a posting length limit. It wouldn't be fair to just let one side go on forever. 2) And likewise, you'd need some kind of rules governing sources. Or else people would just make a point and then source thirty articles as their argument. This is annoying. |
|||
|
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36 Posts: 70/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| He has a point. Though I'm not quite sure about the second one. Lots of sources are a good thing, it lends credibility to the point you make. | |||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 1009/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| I think this isn't a great idea... And besides, what if someone doesn't know boo about a topic that's chosen? Not all of us at the board are American, you know. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 101/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Cthulhu Not on the internet. You can find a dozen sources for any position you want. The credibility of these sources is important, but you don't want to see every debate turn into a source credibility argument, or sourcing philosophy argument. (Do more sources mean a point is more believable? A year ago, then, it would have been an easy argument that Iraq had WMD, etc. etc.) At the very least, any source given should have some part of it quoted in the argument, and that quote is what is debated over. So if you list thirty sources for a point, you also have to quote those thirty sources, and your opponent can respond to those quotes, or attack the sources. But otherwise links could be used to cheat the length limit of an argument, and it really would turn into a clusterfuck when you just end up lobbing articles at each other to make your arguments and replies. I mean, that's what high school / college policy debate is. And that's really not fun. (edited by hhallahh on 04-20-04 10:10 PM) |
|||
|
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36 Posts: 72/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| Couldn't worldwide topic be picked then? Or group them depending on where you're from. That one would work...maybe. Wait! Don;t listen to me or you'll end us as screwed up as me! | |||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101 Posts: 428/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahhOriginally posted by Legion 1) Not necessary. And mildly retarded. Not fair? Um, each person has the ability to post however much they want. 2) Um, what in the living hell? I didn't say source every single fucking thing you say. I added the source thing because sometimes in arguements on this board, certain statistics come into play and people ask for sources. I thought it went without saying that the sources would need to be credible but apparently some people are too dense to pick up on this. And you think my idea is lame? Well then forget about it then. I happen to think you're lame but you don't see me trying to get rid of you now do you? Colleen, I already know how you work. If I made a thread saying let's NOT do this, you would say "Why not? It's a great idea." (edited by Legion on 04-20-04 10:27 PM) (edited by Legion on 04-20-04 10:30 PM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 102/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| 1) Not necessary. And mildly retarded. Not fair? Um, each person has the ability to post however much they want. The length limit is so that arguments can be compressed, so that it doesn't turn into "I reply to your point with 3 points, you reply to each of them with 3 points, I reply to each of those with 3 points", and then before you know your post goes on forever. It's what happens. 2) Um, what in the living hell? I didn't say source every single fucking thing you say. I added the source thing because sometimes in arguements on this board, certain statistics come into play and people ask for sources. I thought it went without saying that the sources would need to be credible but apparently some people are too dense to pick up on this. Way to not understand. The point is that people will just use links instead of arguments, and it'd be stupid. Person A: "I think guns are good." Person B: "No. Vist here, here, and here. I rest my case." That's not a debate. Basically, as you have it, the only way your "debates" would work is if people were crappy judges who just decide a winner by going with whatever side their instinct likes. Maybe this is a good idea, since most people are like this, but it's still crappy judging. A good debate necessitates many arguments, with many points, all of which are replied to in some way in every reply. You don't have some kind of content rules, and things get out of hand quickly. But you're an amateur, I'll presume everyone else is an amateur, and maybe it'll work out like that. In real (sport) debates, there are time limits instead of length ones. In real (sport) debates, people use flow charts in order to judge the sides. Ah well. (edited by hhallahh on 04-20-04 11:00 PM) |
|||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101 Posts: 429/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| Hey genius, here's a quick news flash for you. This isn't meant to be a insanely serious event. It's not official, it's not meant to be a "sport", and it's certainly not meant to have ANY impact whatsoever. It's mean to be for, get this, you're going to love it: FUN! EGADZOOKSJEHOSEFATSOMG! Calm the fuck down and realize you're on a messageboard that's, for the most part, lighthearted. We're not at Yale, we're not at Harvard. |
|||
|
Cthulhu Rex Level: 36 Posts: 79/541 EXP: 302159 For next: 5951 Since: 04-04-04 From: R'lyeh Since last post: 123 days Last activity: 61 days |
| ||
| Legion has a point. I think that this debate thingy should just be for fun. No need for all these dang strict rules and all. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Master Debators! |
| | |
