43
by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
OK, I think I'm going to go ahead with this. A bunch of people have pmed me saying they're interested, so let's do this. Kerble sent me some suggestions, and I've merged his with mine to make a sort of hybrid. Here's the set of rules for the first debate - they will probably be tweaked before the second debate after we see their shortcomings. Changes since earlier are in italics:
1. Everyone who is interested, send me a pm saying so.
2. From these names, I will choose 3 judges and 2 captains.
3. The 2 captains will each pm me a list of the remaining players, in order of desirability.
4. I will make 2 teams based on those lists.
5. The issue will be chosen, and one team randomly assigned the affirmative, and the other the negative.
6. The captain of the affirmative team (Aff) will post first, a statement arguing in favor of the issue, covering all aspects of it. Opening statements should be well-organized, and ideally have their points numbered.
7. A player from the negative team (Neg), nominated by the Neg captain, will cross-examine the Aff opening, asking 5 questions of the Aff team.
8. The Neg captain will post next, a statement arguing against the issue, etc. This rebuttal must answer all of the points raised in the Aff opening.
9. An Aff player nominated by the Aff captain will cross-examine the Neg rebuttal, asking 5 questions of the Neg team.
10. One Aff player nominated by the Aff captain will post next, rebutting the negative argument, etc. This rebuttal should answer all the questions raised in the Neg cross-examination. It may introduce new evidence, but may not make new arguments.
11. One Neg player nominated by the Neg captain will post next, rebutting the affirmative argument, etc. Again, this should answer all arguments and questions raised.
12. Anything goes. At this point, things will resemble a typical thread here, only it's being judged, so ... a little more careful. Points will be given for arguments well made or well refuted, and taken for namecalling, ad hominem attacks, various logical fallacies, etc. Links to supporting websites should be provided only as a means of checking authenticity, not as a substitute for writing the arguments yourself. Do not post someone else's work without putting it in quotes or in a quote box and crediting the author. This is plagiarism.
13. 48 hours from the posting of step 11 above, arguments are closed. At this time the three judges should read carefully every post in the thread.
14. Each judge will write one post evaluating each team's performance and declaring a winner. Judges are also encouraged to point out particularly well formed arguments and glaring logical fallacies. Also, "well played"s and "salut"s should be given for clever comebacks and witty banter, although that kind of thing should not have a bearing on declaring a winner. Judges should also, of course, not consider their own opinion on the topic at hand, only which team argued its case more effectively. Concise and compact arguments should be given more points, while gratuitous, repetitive posts should be given demerits. Judges are instructed to only evaluate information and arguments that appear in posts in the debate thread. Links to websites should be provided by posters to show the authenticity of information, but the relevant information itself should appear in the post.
15. The team that receives at least 2 votes from the judges is the winning team. The captain of this team performs steps 1 through 5 above for the next round. The winning captain may make himself a judge in the following round, but no captain in one round should be one in the next round, nor should a judge in one round be a judge in the next.
Okay, there it is. I'd like to start in about 24 hours, so everyone who wants in please pm me if you haven't. Requests to not be made captain or not be made judge will be honored. Requests to be made captain will not. Requests to be made judge... I haven't decided. Suggestions of all kinds are still more than welcome, by post or by pm, especially suggestions on what the issue to debated should be.
Thanks!
Why do you make it so scary to post here.