Official Forum Debate #1
Cronos
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Alcohol should be banned</div> Hey guys!
Welcome to a new way with which to discuss issues plagueing society. This is a formal debate. There will be 3 speakers (posters) for the affirmative team, and three speakers (posters) for negative team. The issue to be debated is whether alcohol should be banned from society.
For those not familiar with formal debating, let me set a few ground rules.
The first speaker for the affirmative introduces the topic, states what is being debated in clear terms, brings up a point, then thanks the reader for reading and ends his post.
The first speaker for the negative then states the negative teams intentions, brings up a point, rebuts the first affirmative speakers point, then ends his post.
The second speaker for the Affirmative then brings up the bulk of the teams arguments. Any number of points can be brought up, but three points should be optimal. He then rebuts the previous speakers arguments, then ends his post.
The second speaker for the negative does the same.
The third and final speaker for the affirmative can then sum up his teams arguments. Restates an important point, rebuts the second negatives points and then concludes the topic for the affirmative.
The third and final speaker does much the same for the negative, except that <b>NO</b> new points can be brought up. The third speakers role is entirely rebuttal.
Once all speakers have had their say, 3 judges whom have been chosen by me and will be contacted shortly after the creation of this post, will consider the value of the arguments presented.
Judges take note. Do not play favorites. Do not say what you would rather want. You are only judging how well each team has argued their case. If it is found out that favorites have been played, the judgement and the entire debate will be rendered null and void, and said judge will not be judging again.
There are also some general rules, but most apply to speakers.
1. You volunteer to be a speaker
2. You agree that it is first come first serve. The first 6 posts in this topic requesting to be speakers will be granted speaker status.
3. Your team will be chosen at random by me. You cant say "I'll be speaker for the affirmative" no. You will be selected as a speaker. I will then flip a coin as to which side you will be on. Heads for affirmative, tails for negative. It is only the fairest way.
4. If you wind up on the team you didnt want to be, you have two options. You can pull out of the debate and the next person in line can fill your position, or you can argue with utmost vigour in any case. It may be difficult to argue against your own views but it does give you an edge in that you can predict certain arguments against you.
5. <b>NO DENIGRATION</b> For those unclear on this, let me put forth an example. If say, Smart Bomb puts forth a concise, clear and outstanding argument in favour of alcohol, you CANNOT RESPOND with something like "Yeah, this comes from the guy that invented hovaring scorpians".
To make it clearer. At no point are you to insult, degrade, or denigrate the opposing teams charecter, or person. You can make their arguments look unsound, but the second I see an insult thrown I will consider that speakers arguments completely null and void. The judges also agree to this.
6. There will be no emotion in your arguments. You must present an argument as cooly and calmly as possible. Rebuttals can be emotional, but at no point should emotion control your argumentation.
7. A period of one week will be allowed to elapse for the Debaters to research the topic at hand. At the end of that week, each debater is to present their case in the order indicated above. You are allowed to pretype your debate and add rebuttals in later.
8. At no point do you show your arguments to the opposing teams members to sabotage the debate. If I find evidence of this, the debate will be immediately rendered null and void. The person that does this will also never be allowed to participate on the speaker (let alone judging panel) level ever again.
9. The debates will take place over a period of 1 week. Concessions will be made should life get in the way.
10. It is asked that all those not participating in the debate refrain from posting a discussion on the arguments presented until such a time as the debates are finished. This is to prevent general clutter. Please, do observe this rule.
The judges will now be contacted via the PM system. They can post in the topic if they so wish to pass their judgements. A majority vote will mean victory. There can be no abstaining. Simply say "Judgement for the affirmative" or "Judgement for the negative" to indicate which team you think debated better overall.
Thank you for reading, and let the debates begin!
Welcome to a new way with which to discuss issues plagueing society. This is a formal debate. There will be 3 speakers (posters) for the affirmative team, and three speakers (posters) for negative team. The issue to be debated is whether alcohol should be banned from society.
For those not familiar with formal debating, let me set a few ground rules.
The first speaker for the affirmative introduces the topic, states what is being debated in clear terms, brings up a point, then thanks the reader for reading and ends his post.
The first speaker for the negative then states the negative teams intentions, brings up a point, rebuts the first affirmative speakers point, then ends his post.
The second speaker for the Affirmative then brings up the bulk of the teams arguments. Any number of points can be brought up, but three points should be optimal. He then rebuts the previous speakers arguments, then ends his post.
The second speaker for the negative does the same.
The third and final speaker for the affirmative can then sum up his teams arguments. Restates an important point, rebuts the second negatives points and then concludes the topic for the affirmative.
The third and final speaker does much the same for the negative, except that <b>NO</b> new points can be brought up. The third speakers role is entirely rebuttal.
Once all speakers have had their say, 3 judges whom have been chosen by me and will be contacted shortly after the creation of this post, will consider the value of the arguments presented.
Judges take note. Do not play favorites. Do not say what you would rather want. You are only judging how well each team has argued their case. If it is found out that favorites have been played, the judgement and the entire debate will be rendered null and void, and said judge will not be judging again.
There are also some general rules, but most apply to speakers.
1. You volunteer to be a speaker
2. You agree that it is first come first serve. The first 6 posts in this topic requesting to be speakers will be granted speaker status.
3. Your team will be chosen at random by me. You cant say "I'll be speaker for the affirmative" no. You will be selected as a speaker. I will then flip a coin as to which side you will be on. Heads for affirmative, tails for negative. It is only the fairest way.
4. If you wind up on the team you didnt want to be, you have two options. You can pull out of the debate and the next person in line can fill your position, or you can argue with utmost vigour in any case. It may be difficult to argue against your own views but it does give you an edge in that you can predict certain arguments against you.
5. <b>NO DENIGRATION</b> For those unclear on this, let me put forth an example. If say, Smart Bomb puts forth a concise, clear and outstanding argument in favour of alcohol, you CANNOT RESPOND with something like "Yeah, this comes from the guy that invented hovaring scorpians".
To make it clearer. At no point are you to insult, degrade, or denigrate the opposing teams charecter, or person. You can make their arguments look unsound, but the second I see an insult thrown I will consider that speakers arguments completely null and void. The judges also agree to this.
6. There will be no emotion in your arguments. You must present an argument as cooly and calmly as possible. Rebuttals can be emotional, but at no point should emotion control your argumentation.
7. A period of one week will be allowed to elapse for the Debaters to research the topic at hand. At the end of that week, each debater is to present their case in the order indicated above. You are allowed to pretype your debate and add rebuttals in later.
8. At no point do you show your arguments to the opposing teams members to sabotage the debate. If I find evidence of this, the debate will be immediately rendered null and void. The person that does this will also never be allowed to participate on the speaker (let alone judging panel) level ever again.
9. The debates will take place over a period of 1 week. Concessions will be made should life get in the way.
10. It is asked that all those not participating in the debate refrain from posting a discussion on the arguments presented until such a time as the debates are finished. This is to prevent general clutter. Please, do observe this rule.
The judges will now be contacted via the PM system. They can post in the topic if they so wish to pass their judgements. A majority vote will mean victory. There can be no abstaining. Simply say "Judgement for the affirmative" or "Judgement for the negative" to indicate which team you think debated better overall.
Thank you for reading, and let the debates begin!
Comments
<span style='color:red'>*NUKED*</span>
[edit]You may want to make a suggestion or rule about how outside sources (quotes and/or links) are to be handled.
Maybe have the *official* one in a seperate thread, and have a public one in a seperate thread, and at the end of the week compare them? They might be fairly interesting.
The rules are not as complicated as they seem, heck, 13 year olds can obey them with proficiency and most people that frequent discussions are somewhat more intelligent and more mature then most people in year 7 (I speak with reference to the Year sevens at my school).
The abridged version...
1. Volunteers only
2. First in Best dressed
3. You will be assigned to a team randomly by me
4. If your on the team you didnt want to go on, you can either pull out or keep arguing as strong as you would have.
5. Dont insult or degrade the members of the opposing team. Consequences will be harsh otherwise.
6. Arguments should be presented in a logical fashion, without emotion. Rebuttal can be emotional.
7. You get one week to research the topic at hand. Debating will take the order indicated in my first post. You are allowed to pretype your argumentation.
8. You will not in any way, manner or form, attempt to sabotage your teams efforts.
9. The debates will take place over a period of 1 week. Concessions will be made should life get in the way.
10. Proper discussions can take place after the debating period is over. Until then, only official debaters/judges should post to make sure the topic does not become cluttered.
11. Proper referencing of materials is encouraged if you are relying on factual data (IE, where you got your info on). Google or any other search engine cant be listed as a resource. Link to the article you got your info from.
Now lets not let this die, I think it could be great to have something like this going on if people can drum up the proper attitude to make it work.
Dont dissapoint me now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->