Board index » Experimental Forums » Chamber of Debate » Challenges
I’ll PM faust for clarification. I leave it between Faust and Joker to pick a 3rd judge and then give the link to the debate thread on this thread. It doesn’t matter to me who opens first.
Hold horses on the actual subject, if you’d be willing.
awaiting a response
I’ll judge it if you want. I’ve got experience from the last one.
i know the contestants fairly well… I would ablige if you need me.
Are any of those 2 to your liking, Joker?
I hear the chestnut mare over there has fine jumping legs for the prize race. 
Smears and wonderer are cool in my book. ( Go ahead and pick them.)
However note that I will not be on the computer again after today until Sunday afternoon since I will be going on a mountain hike for a day and a half.
You open first considering that this would be the first official debate believe it or not that I have participated in.
Oh eenie-meenie-miney-mo . . .
Wonderer you’re up next.
I enjoy the painful irony of you and Gib stuck together after the whole less-than-one debate.
Judges are Faust, Gib, and Wonderer. Faust, assuming you’re willing to be judge, let’s have the thread.
Aye aye, just tell me where to point. :-"
Okay, kids. So you have judges? Fine. The debate hasn’t started yet - that would be on the debate forum. I’ll start the thread as soon as I can figure out the rules for your debate. If there are any, please state them concisely in one post.
i suggest 3 supplementarys, maximum 3000 words per post. (expept for the opening arguments)
Subject of debate: Justification for the pursuance of technology.
5 participants: 2 competitors. 3 judges.
Advocated by Gaiaguerrilla (competitor)
Opposed by Joker. (competitor)
Primary judge and referree: Faust (judge) Intervenes if feels necessary.
Secondary Judge permitted by Gaiaguerrilla: Gib (judge)
Secondary Judge permitted by Joker: Wonderer. (judge)
6 consecutive posts- in the sequence: Gaiaguerrilla, Joker, next round (repeat sequence).
2 posts per round, 3 rounds.
No more than 10 pictures posted throughout the 6 posts.
Round 1: Opening statements. No word limit. Judges ideate that each post demonstrates between 3 and 10 individual ideas (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). No discourse between competitors (no quoting competitor). Judges consider the strength of opening statement.
Round 2: Discourse between competitors (quoting competitor now permitted). Judges ideate a 3000 word maximum (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). Judges consider the insight and politeness of discourse, as well as work toward concensus.
Round 3: Closing statements. No discourse between competitors (quoting competitor no longer permitted). Judges ideate a 3000 word maximum (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). Judges consider completion of subject through closing.
EDIT
48 hours for each post to be made, after the thread has started.
Understood.
Are we using a formal point system?
That’s between the judges.
But it’s no fair that I should wait for the thread. Faust must think that philosophy requires patience or attention span or contemplation or something.
Joker still needs until Sunday afternoon (make it up to Monday morning, we all need time to recover from our usual midnight mass).
I don’t want to be that formal.
I say we use good ol’ fashion philosophical reasoning skills (keeping in mind that the judges aren’t the ones debating amongst themselves).
Attention should be paid to the use of formal deductive logic (or inductive logic as long as the speaker admits it).
Attention should be paid to factual references (scientific, historical, political, etc.) - might need sources if so-called “facts” are highly esoteric.
Credence should be awarded to resounding common-sense reasoning - debaters should be allowed to bring in assumptions like the world is round or that Creationism is false without burden-of-proof requirements.
Attention should be paid to confessions of flaws or weaknesses in the arguments (even though those flaws and weaknesses count against the debater - but better that you point them out than the judges discover them).
Attention should be paid to clarity, conciseness and thoroughness.
Anything else?
I’m going to look at this again on Sunday night. If I can make sense of all this blather, I will open the thread. There is another debate in the offing - and we’re only going to do these one at a time. The first group that can give me a concise and clear statement of what they are going to be doing gets the nod.
We haven’t disallowed pictures, but we should have. Debaters don’t usually use powerpoint - it’s a debate.
Three thousand words is an awful oot of words. If you expect me to actually read 3,000 words, they had better be good ones.
Just to let you know.
My opening statement is only about 630 words, so we can probably remain well under 1,000.
I’ll remake my “rules” post with a little more clarity.
[size=150][b]Justification for the pursuance of technology.[/size][/b]
5 Participants: Gaiaguerrilla, Joker, Faust, Gib, Wonderer.
[b]Rules[/b]
Posts: 6 consecutive posts- in the sequence: Gaiaguerrilla, Joker, next round (repeat sequence). 2 posts per round, 3 rounds.
Round 1: Opening statements. Judges ideate that each post demonstrates between 3 and 10 individual ideas (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). No discourse between competitors (no quoting competitor). Judges consider the strength of opening statement.
Round 2: Discourse between competitors (quoting competitor now permitted). Judges consider the insight and politeness of discourse, as well as work toward concensus.
Round 3: Closing statements. No discourse between competitors (quoting competitor no longer permitted). Judges consider completion of subject through closing.
Picture Limit: No more than 10 pictures posted in total for each competitor.
Time Intervals: 48 hours for each post to be made, after the thread has started.
Word Limit: 1000 words maximum per post.
Damn I wish I jumped to judge this one.
This will be interesting!