|
| Thread: Guild of Debaters |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
posted August 20, 2004 05:13 PM |
|
|
Take in mind that i'm 16, so i'm no professor.
And i would like to have some subject about Vikings, i really love those dudes.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 20, 2004 05:39 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 20 Aug 2004
|
Associated Pre-Existing Thread Locations(A.P.T.L.'s)
I think it's important to maintain a smooth-flowing congruous direction for debates worthy of global observation. In the spirit of such a cause, I submit that there are many pre-existing threads that either have begun, or have already addressed specific debate directions. I call these "A.P.T.L.'s"
Privatehudson has brought up some very interesting questions of:Quote:
Was the use of the Atom bomb against Japan a unjustified warcrime or merely the lesser of all evils the allies faced? (I could put forward both, but would prefer "lesser of all evils"
Was any one of the "Big Three" allied countries (USA, USSR, UK) more responsible for winning WWII than the others? If yes, which? (I would prefer to argue that none of them were more important)
I would like to politely offer the thread I started entitled, "WWII : Who Saved The World" which can be found at this link:
 http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=11217
In this thread there have been a great deal of varied, researched, well documented, accounts from elder family members, and opinions already posted. If these debate subjects light any small spark of intellectual intrigue then I offer this thread for the place to post your thoughts concerning the matter.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 20, 2004 05:44 PM |
|
|
I'm glad that we can come to an agreement whereby the debate here continues, and interested people who are not involved can discuss the debate and it's points there. I see no reason why the debate would impact badly on existing threads 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 02:08 AM |
|
|
PH's got the point of these debates. Its a different thing than an open discussion, though often a spontaneous debate develops there. And heroes threads can sure be of excellent use as databases.
Thats why we should try to keep the topics as unrelated with existing threads as possible, or we might get the effect of repeating ourselves. However if different persons are involved, or even the same, but from different perspectives, I see no problem there.
Keep the APTLs rolling, Consis.
Woock's our first candidate. You might IM Dingo and ask him if he wants to be your opponent, or let some other man crazy enough to promote Dingo's style, take this place.
Quote:
Well, I am against banning organised religion. I wonder who would take the opposite position 
Funny. I had you in mind, Lews, when writing this topic. 
You surprised me now really with that attitude 2 tell you the truth. But I will debate this topic with you, if there's no one else enthusiastic enough to ban organized religion.
Quote:
You didn't even spell the man's name correctly. How insulting of someone so influencial to me!
Wow! I beg for forgiveness, especially because I didnt know I was so influencial to you.
Consis, it was 6AM when made my "sin", kind a dizzy after the crazy night. And I dont care how many times people quote him, I still think he was one of the most anachronic philosophers ever. There's a nice discussion about him in Philosophy thread just starting, so feel free to post there. Or also feel free to debate Nietzsche with me, if you want.
Or I'm also willing to debate China and WW3 with you. (Naturally the resolution could use a little make-up) Since you complain that I didnt create a thread for that, I invite you to debate that one on one.
PIck what you want. No APTLs for both of them.
Oh, almost forgot:
Quote:
Fit that into the rather unusual format we're supposed to use as you wish.
Its a stadard format that makes the debate short and clear (no mile long threads of quote/unquote; I know. your favourite ). And hey, it's only a model, because from personal experience when people are given absolte freedom to choose they end up having no clue what they want. As I said, if a particular debate doesnt fit this concept, the format is free for adjustments.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 02:49 AM |
|
|
Well I see you 'hand-picked' our pet subjects for us.
Is homosexuality genetic in origin?
I'll take that challenge.
I have a few more to add.
- Do foetuses feel pain? If so, what are the implications for abortion?
- Do TV stars have a moral responsibility to act responsibly as they are in the public eye?
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 02:53 AM |
|
|
Well....
I'm personally fond of the simple essay format, whereby each is given a set time to post an essay style of argument in which they try to cover the topic, set out their side of the argument and state why they support that side. Because they only get one shot at the topic they need to consider both sides in a way because they need to address the other side of the coin, and then say why the side they support has more meaning to them, or is more logical. This style tends to be less rigid, so is easier, but can be harder because each debater is required to consider both sides of the argument, because if your opponent has discussed their points and done a better job than you of rebutting them than you do of his, then your points struggle to have the same impact as they otherwise would. There would be no quoting as each essay/argument (essay sounds so formal, but it's the best word) would entirely be the debaters work and each would have to think of what the opponent may address in advance.
In some ways this suits more those with less time on their hands, in that rather than have to write and post a number of replies during a period, they have 2 weeks or so to write one reply, and only have to be online once in that time for a very short period in order to take part in the debate. Once the two arguments are posted, we return of course to the voting as normal.
I don't see the above as being set up as a replacement to yours, but perhaps as an alternative style that the debaters can choose prior to the debate begining, debaters choosing which they prefer beforehand. Whilst yours may be a "standard" (I've heard a number of formats to be honest, these being just 2 of them) form of debating, there's room for both to be used depending on what the debaters prefer. That way those who are unable to devote as much time to be online a number of times during a fortnight have an offline way of working on the debate too. I don't consider the "free" nature of the debate to be as much of a problem.
I think there's room for either style as long as the style is agreed on by both parties in advance. If we clearly label the two as a "type" or number of debate then this is easy to do. Personally I prefer this style as the freedom allows for variation in debating style and content that wouldn't necessarily come out in a more rigid format, and it requires a little more skill in some ways as you have to consider both sides in your arguments for yourself. However I'm happy in either style.
Lastly, as an aside to both styles, it would be good for the thread in which the debate occurred, or the voting thread to remain open once dealt with. There people could enquire with each poster about their arguments, their points and how they researched them and so on. Allowing this might bring in new potential debaters as they can discover from others good sources and methods, whilst at the same time allowing the discussion to continue.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 07:06 AM |
|
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 11:28 AM |
|
|
Good, that will give them pleanty of food for thought then
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 12:00 PM |
|
|
@PH's post about essays:
bah, you no fun - I'm outie 
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 12:08 PM |
|
|
Subjects
I'd like to be in a "Ethics" debate, and a "wiev of life" debate, real life subjects, i for one cannot dicuss the World War 3 debate, since i know nothing about it, but everyday matters i am wellknown with, almost every aspect of it(There are still limits)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 21, 2004 12:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@PH's post about essays:
bah, you no fun - I'm outie
What? I said it was a choice thing, you can do either, read it again before complaining.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 22, 2004 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Personally I prefer this style as the freedom allows for variation in debating style and content that wouldn't necessarily come out in a more rigid format, and it requires a little more skill in some ways as you have to consider both sides in your arguments for yourself.
PH, this is an interesting style, but it's already very similar to ordinary posting on a topic. There's no clash of points here.
Karl Poper format isnt that rigid at all in my opinion, but only thought provoking since it requires logic, rather than just "philosophisizing". You do have to consider both sides of the argument. Thats crucial actuallly. As I said, refuting and rebuttal are crucial when defending your position. Its just you dont have to predict the opponent's points in advance, but he is required to lay down all of them (the arguments) in his first speech. I'm afraid the type of format you're proposing isnt really suitable for debating (primarily because of the lack of clash), but for a simple discussion where personal opinion matters, not a pre-given position on a subject, that you must defend.
OK, still no matches. I'm waiting for Consis' response to my challanges. Please answer earlier man, cos if you dont want to I might debate with Asmo on one of his topics.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 22, 2004 08:13 PM |
|
|
Well if we have to use that format we have to, I just prefer a format whereby we do not have to stick to a certain system, but are allowed to discuss it in our own fashion that's all. I just feel there's room for both it people so desire. But since you're set on that style I'll just have to adapt to it. Howver I disagree with your analysis of the two, but in the interests of peace I will remain silent, you have spoken.
Doesn't matter though since no-one's willing to match against me on history, I guess I must have a reputation or something...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted August 24, 2004 04:00 AM |
|
|
Ph, I agree. Certainly people will be allowed to express as they wish. It should be strongly encouriged. Humour, irony, facts, logic - everything is welcomed.
Now, I'm sorry people r not that interested in historical topics. I would have debated WW2 bomb, but we already did that, and the others are not that appealing to me (and I can imagine even less for the others ).
If you propose more cold war/communist based topics, or politics (related to history) ones I would be much more likely to debate that.
Quote:
Is homosexuality genetic in origin?
I'll take that challenge.
Ok Asmo. We've got the first match. You and me baby!
I suppose you'd take the affirmative position (which suits me better). In that case start preparing the opening speech. Any technicalities are better to be dealt with through IM.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 06:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I am against banning organised religion. I wonder who would take the opposite position
Funny. I had you in mind, Lews, when writing this topic.
You surprised me now really with that attitude 2 tell you the truth. But I will debate this topic with you, if there's no one else enthusiastic enough to ban organized religion.
We can do that when I´m back from vacation .
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2004 10:35 AM |
|
|
Geuss I'll bow out of this then since nothing is likely to come of those topics I have an interest in. Unless cold war includes Arab-Israel conflicts. The majority of the cold war period bores me.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 25, 2004 12:03 AM |
|
|
Why don't we just continue like we've always done, instead of making a bunch of rules that make the whole thing complicated.
For the members of the guild we could have the ones of us who have been here and debating for a long time. And anyone else that wants to join can apply in a certain thread and the members can vote on it.
I'm just trying to simplify the idea.
If someone wants to put together a list of those that would be admitted into the guild right away that could be a step forward.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 28, 2004 02:40 AM |
|
|
I wasnt around lately. I just got back from vacation.
Wolfman, me and Asmodean are starting a debate just now. So you and the rest will get the point of this concept once that demo debate is finished.
No need for any list of membership or smth. Everyone's admitted at any time.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted August 28, 2004 02:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think that privatehudson shouldn`t be allowed to debate.Everybody knows he`ll ruthlessly smash his opponent before the poor guy knows what hit him.
lol
toss of the day award goes to this comment...
Only way for PH to win an arguement is when he start argues with himself (which is very common as he usually makes the arguments of the person his discussing with and then respondes to them instead of the actual points the other person brings up...those points he excludes from his out of context quotes)
apart from that this thread seems interesting, if a good topic pops up im in too.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 28, 2004 02:52 PM |
|
|
*ignores the childish babbling*
So I take it then that middle-east wars history doesn't interest you then Svarog. In that case, it seems that including me in the guild isn't very much point since there's nothing for me to discuss, or no-one to discuss it with.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
|
|
