ILP v. ILO Debate

I think I may have had one of the coolest ideas of my life.

That idea is a debate between ILP and ILO.

Here is my plan, the first thing we have to do is get at least three volunteers that will be willing to participate in a debate against three members of ILO. Now, if we were to have more than three volunteers, all of the regular posters here can vote on the three representatives that they believe will best represent ILP. (Barring the actual judges, of course.)

Once the three ILP and ILO representatives are determined, I believe the next step would be to determine judges. I believe the judges should rightfully be individuals that frequent both places who do not have an overt preference or bias. That said, should KrisWest be willing, I think her and myself would be two obvious candidates, I do not have anyone in mind for a third, but anyone that posts (regularly) at both places would work.

The next step is the picking of topics. I believe for this the representatives of ILP and those of ILO should confer with one another and each team gets to pick a topic and what stance the team chooses to defend. In the event that there is a 1-1 split tie after the first two topics have been debated the judges will have already come to a topic agreed upon by same (judges) to break the tie.

In order to avoid any home-field advantage, this debate will not be held at either website, per se, rather I will act as an intermediary. The ILP debaters will post there responses/premises or whatever the case may be that I will copy/paste and post (without adding to, subtracting from, or modifying anything) over at ILO. In turn, the responses that are made over at ILO will be copy/pasted by myself and posted over here. That way we do not have to worry about any account-creating, duplicate posts or any of that bullcrap.

Anyway, I have spoken to one of the global moderators at ILO regarding this and he would like to see it happen. I think it would be interesting myself and I am sure there are others who would agree. Basically, he told me to gauge and see if there would be any interest over here and come up with a plan that makes it feasible, I think I have done just that.

ILO is a whole other world to me… but the idea for the debate sounds good!

I’ll take ILP’s side if anybody wants me, since ILO is full of fucking convoluted idiots, except Satyr.

pavlov, I will be unbiased but , do others think I will be? There is history between some of us. The problem with history, it tends to blind the present.

In my opinion, the only history that you have is a history of unbiasness. You are always willinh o listen to the viewpoints and opinions of others and consistently take them into consideration even when you disagree.

Even if that were not true, there are not many people that post at both sites, I think you and I are about as unbiased as it is going to get.

Unreasonable, I’d have liked to ask you to be the third judge, but now I can’t, I will consider your hat in the ring to represent ILP, though. Don’t be surprised if you end up going up against Satyr.

There’s no way I could be a judge. I am biased against both ILP and ILO, unequally too.

I think you would be an interesting addition to the ILP team, unreasonable. I think it would be a good way for ILP to ensure it has all of its bases covered. I am thinking that maybe we would do the debate to where each side would get three posts on each topic, as a result, each team member would post once.

It would not be beneficial for either team to have carbon-copies of previous posts and you have the sort of,“outside the box,” mentality that would keep what you say wholly original. My only concern is that you must make sure that you agree with your teammates at all times and not contradict what they say regardless of how ridiculous you feel a teammate’s statement to be.

Well, as expected, you’d imagine that each individual on each team is attempting to win the debate for themselves as a team.

Great idea; I’d love to see it whether I’m desired to participate in it or not actually.

Won’t happen.

Believe it or not, XZC, there is plenty of work that I am doing behind the scenes both here and over there that will ensure that this debate will happen.

Change of Plans:

Instead of each team choosing a category and the judges choosing a category, I believe that each of the three judges should choose one category, that suggestion is not by any means an original idea on my part, but for the time being I cannot say whose idea it was.

ILO has a total of like…9 people, myself included. Og, wc, phaedrus, yyy, sven, numb, siatd, thirst. I can’t see anyone of them caring, but if it happens, that would be cool, I guess.

More Specific Rules Regarding Inter-Site Debate:

1.) Judges: There will be three judges that are as close to neutral as possible
insofar as they post both at ILP and at ILO and seemingly exhibit no preference to
either of the two sites. I have already decided that both myself and KrisWest
will be two of the judges and KrisWest has already confirmed that she would
provided neither party have a problem with her judging.

2.) Opponents: Three members of ILP vs. Three members of ILO. People that are
members of both sites may volunteer to represent whichever side they choose
provided they are not judges.

3.) Topics: The debates will take a best two-out-of-three format and the
topics will be chosen by the three judges. Each judge will ultimately
decide his/her own topic, but the judges will also confer privately (yet openly)
regarding what topics are to be chosen.

4.) Posting: In the interest of fairness, I believe that posting should take
place at both sites. ILP members will post at ILP and ILO members at ILO. I
will act as intermediary and I will copy/paste all posts to the opposing website.
Additionally, any posts from non-judges and non-participants will also be copy/pasted
to the other site if they are posted in the debate threads as there shall be no
cheating. Finally, regarding posting, each specific debate of the three will take place
in its own specific thread on both sites. Each debate will be judged by the judges in its
own thread and there will be a final thread summarizing the overall result.

5.) Teams: The teams will be selected either by volunteer or by vote at such a time that
the judges have selected their topics and made those topics public.

6.) Format:

A.) In every debate, each team member will be allowed to post once, and the order
in which each member posts does not have to be pre-determined. The only thing that will be
pre-determined is who posts first. In the first of the three debates, ILP will open and
ILO will conclude. In the second of the three debates, ILO will open and ILP will conclude.
In the final debate (if necessary) the team that has won the first debate will have the option
of going first or deferring the priviledge to the other team.

B.) The time shall be as follows: For each debate each debater may only post once, after
the debater has posted, said debater may NOT post on the thread again until the debate has
concluded. If one of the debaters posts on the same debate thread twice (prior to the debate
ending) his or her team forfeits that debate. I will make a post that officially declares the
debate underway and inform the first poster that he/she has 48 hours to post their premise.
After that post is made, I will copy/paste the post to the other website. Now, the poster for
the other website will have 48 hours from the time that I make the post to their website, not
from the time that the original post is made to respond.

c.) If you are a participant or a judge, from the official start of the first debate I will not
read or respond to ANY private messages from any participant or judge and suggest that both of the
other judges promise same.

D.) When all six individuals have posted, the judges will decide which team wins the debate, state
their reasons why, and I will (Around 24 hours later) open up the second/third debate.

E.) Any use of ad hom whatsoever in the form of direct name-calling results in a forfeit for your
team for that particular debate.

If that is how you feel, then I recommend you volunteer to represent ILO.

You mean no one has volunteered yet? No, thanks, by the way. I’ve got way much on my plate as it is.

There have already been two tentative volunteers to represent ILO, I do not believe a third will be a problem.

lol…

Having been on both sites, this is definitely the philosophical one.

probably the one that would win a debate

There are a few good men and women from ilo, i’d have to hear the volunteers names before i go making any bets

(not participating btw)

That’s cool, Wonderer, this will still be awesome.

When this happens, I may end up regretting not being a spectator, but someone had to bring this whole thing to fruition…

What’s the debate about?

ps. nvm.

open topic decided by judges.

i’d like to g out on a limb here and say that we should do it live, on skype or something similar.

I think that would be an excellent idea, but then you have the problem of scheduling and all of that stuff.

For one thing, I could not be a judge if we were to do it live, the majority of the time I spend on-line is just down-time while I am at work. I take all of the posts I read seriously, though. If I cannot get through a post in one sitting because it is busy here I copy/paste it to a word document, print it out and read it at home.

I think that we should do that in the future, Wonderer, if this goes well then I think we would have a good chance at having multiple inter-site events in the future.