It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate Tournament Commentary

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I don't think they even sell Blue Bell in the U.K.

I feel left out now.




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
I don't think they even sell Blue Bell in the U.K.

I feel left out now.


That's okay. Most of the U.S. gets left out too. Bluebell won't ship further than a certain area because of some of the strictest freshness standards around... It was horrible when I lived in Seattle, because Ben & Jerry's, compared to Blue Bell, is like drinking cheap boxed wine instead of a fine pinot grigio.

Here's the few areas in the lower United States where Bluebell can be found (the red areas)




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
That's okay. Most of the U.S. gets left out too. Bluebell won't ship further than a certain area because of some of the strictest freshness standards around... It was horrible when I lived in Seattle, because Ben & Jerry's, compared to Blue Bell, is like drinking cheap boxed wine instead of a fine pinot grigio.

Here's the few areas in the lower United States where Bluebell can be found (the red areas)



So they can't ship to New Mexico due to their freshness standards, but they can to Arizona? Sounds like a marketing ploy to me



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
That graph is BS. I live in NM and I get blue bell. Not that I'd want it *s'n-word's* cause Ben and Jerry's is much better. Blue Bell is just overloaded with suger to make up for lack of decent cream
WEll, its not that bad but its defintely not better than good ol' B&J

EIDT- I must live in one of the Red Zones because I"m able to get it.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by ktprktpr]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
In a state where Whiskey and Beef are the only two food groups, I'm shocked that ice cream would elicit such support.

And for the record, Ross brand ice cream is delicious, but I've only ever seen it for sale in midwest ghettos.

And since when do cowboys wield swords, finely crafted or otherwise?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So they can't ship to New Mexico due to their freshness standards, but they can to Arizona? Sounds like a marketing ploy to me


Ummm... I'm showing like at least 1/3 of Arizona receiving Blue Bell...

As for why only certain areas within those states, it probably has something to do with those dang psychic vampire reptillians what fly them black triangles...


Originally posted by ktprktpr
Not that I'd want it *s'n-word's* cause Ben and Jerry's is much better. Blue Bell is just overloaded with suger to make up for lack of decent cream
WEll, its not that bad but its defintely not better than good ol' B&J


Blasphemy!!! You dare to desecrate the best ice cream in the Universe with criticism??? You have the audacity...Nay, the HEATHEN GALL to so much as imply that Ben & Jerry's even rests within the same existance of taste and quality???

BLASHPHEMER!!! He must be stoned!


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
In a state where Whiskey and Beef are the only two food groups, I'm shocked that ice cream would elicit such support.


Ice Cream is dairy, dairy is a byproduct of beefs, so it stands to reason we'd defend our own ice cream nearly as much as our beef. It's all about the cows, really. That and football.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
And since when do cowboys wield swords, finely crafted or otherwise?


(blinks) Dude... the Texas Rangers (the badarses on horseback, not the awful excuse for a sellout baseball team) carried sabres, and killed more men with their sabres than their rifles (bein' as sabres didn't make no noise, and didn't use up no bullets). They'd ride into combat, 10 thousand to 1 odds, and win without losing a man...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
1. thelibra, I'm sorry, but the judges are in and you're just plain wrong.

2. LOOK! DEBATES!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
1. thelibra, I'm sorry, but the judges are in and you're just plain wrong.

2. LOOK! DEBATES!


What the heck are you talking about? It almost sounds like you think this thread is supposed to be about Debate Tournament Commentary or something!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
1. thelibra, I'm sorry, but the judges are in and you're just plain wrong.


About the Oil? Perhaps.
About the Ice Cream???? NEVER!!!!!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Blasphemy!!! You dare to desecrate the best ice cream in the Universe with criticism??? You have the audacity...Nay, the HEATHEN GALL to so much as imply that Ben & Jerry's even rests within the same existance of taste and quality???

BLASHPHEMER!!! He must be stoned!


I have the heathen gall and the heathen BALLS to to decree so!


btw, good debate guys


EDIT- I dug up my old schol ava in preparations for this next round. Beware ye who enters my gate!!!! Banzai!!!

And I hope Kenshiro is doing better.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by ktprktpr]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Aaaaaaand stick a fork in us, we're done! Thanks for the great debate, WyrdeOne, I had a lot of fun. I can't wait to find out who won, this could go both ways. Great job


Debate, debate on!



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Quick question about the judgement criteria. Unfortunately, the last round, I never had the chance to discover how it was being judged. Are the judges casting their vote for which side they agree with at the end of the debate, or who seemed to make the best case, regardless of personal belief?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
who seemed to make the best case, regardless of personal belief?


"What is the Definition of Judging? Thanks Alex, I'll take Debate Tournament Commentary for $500, please."

They judge based on which side effectively "won" the debate. Who presented their arguments best, who wrote the best, who defeated their opponent best, etc. etc. It's a challenging process (just ask the - oh wait) especially for the debates since they're so bloody long. There's a lot to look at besides "OMG They won."



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Will the judges come forward after the debate or remain anonymous?

Just out of curiosity.

I also have a question about the relative formality of the debates. Presidential debates are on the low end of the spectrum, in my experience, when it comes to sticking to the topic and staying away from one liners and puns.

Basically, how much starch should I infuse with my underwear before the opening statement?




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Anonymous.

What do you mean by formality? Stay on topic, yes, unlike presidential debates you're actually being judged by intelligent people who are paying attention to what you said, not tie color.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
For example, sourcing articles/references. Are we sticking to one formal guideline or another, or is author, title, date of publication enough? This is sort of relevant, because of my closing statement, and the references I used - Two journal articles and a book.

Thing is, I haven't used formal citing guidelines since I was in school, and I could never get the many various types/situations straight.

The other thing is where the debate is directed, there seems to be a tendency not to adress the opponent directly, which often occurs in informal debates, but is frowned upon in formal settings, if I'm not mistaken.

I guess those were my two main questions as far as formality.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The other thing is where the debate is directed, there seems to be a tendency not to adress the opponent directly, which often occurs in informal debates, but is frowned upon in formal settings, if I'm not mistaken.


I would imagine and hope coming out and insulting the other person would be frowned upon. However, with the whole concept of a rebuttal, you have to address your opponent's points made, as we both did. The way we did it was slightly different, you quoted while I wanted to save the words and summarized what you said.

I suppose we'll find out when Amory or Nygdan sends us the results via U2U along with some comments



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I think the debates should be written for the enjoyment of the reader. So you shouldn't really address your opponent directly. Instead it should be "Mr. Smith stated that......" or "My opponent wrongly assumed......" That seems to be the standard for formal debate.

I also have a suggestion for the next tournament. How about changing the 2nd rebuttal to a cross examination? Each debator could ask their opponent 3 questions and the opponent would have to answer those questions in the next post? It could make for some tricky situations and interesting back and forth questions.

I don't blame the judges for being anonymous. It is better that way. Imagine being badgered by 15 out of the 16 most experienced debators for one of your decisions?? You'd run out of willing judges very quickly!



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I also have a suggestion for the next tournament. How about changing the 2nd rebuttal to a cross examination? Each debator could ask their opponent 3 questions and the opponent would have to answer those questions in the next post? It could make for some tricky situations and interesting back and forth questions.


I like that idea!
It would really force you to think and address the issues you may otherwise try to avoid. Maybe in that situation, there would be a word limit per answer instead of a total post word count.



I don't blame the judges for being anonymous. It is better that way. Imagine being badgered by 15 out of the 16 most experienced debators for one of your decisions?? You'd run out of willing judges very quickly!


Even beyond that, if you know the judges, you could tailor your arguement to the majority of the judges on how they feel about an issue. Instead, with them being annonymous, you really have to cover as many bases as you can to grab the interest of as many people as possible. That's what we're looking for with the debates anyway, I believe. A means for some members to have a lot of fun, but also something to draw readers in and keep ATS interesting on many levels.

They also serve as an example for how you can argue about an issue without resorting to the petty insults we occasionally see here, such as "you're an idiot if you don't understand that concept." There are far more eloquent ways of framing your arguement, and generally as soon as you resort to calling names, neither side will be open to the other's arguement. These serve as an example for how you can keep a heated arguement civil and on the point.

Plus, yeah, it would suck to be a judge and get hit with all kinds of U2Us because you disagreed with their decision, and it wouldn't just be the fighters, but the spectators, too.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Maybe in that situation, there would be a word limit per answer instead of a total post word count.



Something like Max. 50 word questions with 200 to 250 word answers? 3 questions?

Asking good questions would be as good as giving good answers I think. The only probelm would be the order of business. The opponent would have to do two posts in a row.

Any takers?




new topics




 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join