Debate Tournament Commentary

Thelibra, you have the full support of everyone here. Debators are not arguing for positions that they personally agree with, they are using their superior rhetorical skill to argue for an assigned position, and in doing so we all can have a rational and open debate on contentious subjects.

Off_the_Street s almost outta time... Does he even know the new round has started yet? Anyone have his email address? Or is he using every last minute he can? Hmmm...

It'd really suck to have someone disqualified for time at this early stage because they didn't even know it had started yet.



[edit on 7/25/2005 by thelibra]

I don't know, I U2Ued him, and it's showing up as read, so he must know.

I hope he's alright.

I'm perfectly willing to give him more time, if it's alright with the judges.

Keep in mind, it's like 115 degrees where he lives in 'Zona. If I were him, I'd probably be hunkered down in a walk-in freezer, wearing a giant ice cube for a hat.

That really sucks, OTS. It's an excellent debate topic and I know both of you would have done a great job. Hope everything turns out well.

Well it's good that he's alright.

I was actually worried, people are dropping like flies in the SW from this heat wave.

Personally, I thought the topic was quite a bit lopsided, in my favor. The possibility of containing and effectively managing a AI pandemic is practically nill. It's a very hard position to argue effectively.

Initially I thought it was pretty well balanced, but after doing some research for my opening statement, I realized just how much of an advantage I had.

Just for the sake of argument, if someone has ideas for dealing with an AI pandemic, I'd love to hear 'em. The outlook is decidedly grim from where I'm standing...

Well, WyrdeOne, for starters the given time limit allows for a concerted global effort to take place that could, theoretically, cope with the problem after five years.

I'm sorry to see that off the street had to sign off. Maybe a grudge match can be arranged in the future. This just might be the debate tournment with the fewest completed debates.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The possibility of containing and effectively managing a AI pandemic is practically nill. It's a very hard position to argue effectively.

I disagree.....emphatically......

Originally posted by ktprktpr
This just might be the debate tournment with the fewest completed debates.

This might be a good argument for team debates if we could just work out the pesky logistics. Then it wouldn't matter if the demands of a real life (purchased at Wal-Mart or wherever) get in the way of a good debate.Either that or each person has a sub waiting to jump in if necessary.

Having said that it was a bit in the vein of the Peak Oil debate, so I am not sure how interesting or one-sided it would have been.

I also wait in anticipation for the other debate to continue. Both opening statements made and I still have no idea what either side are trying to argue or where they are going. Reminds me of a good Kendo match where the two skilled opponents circle each other waiting for the chance to strike. Hopefully things will gel in the next few posts.

Either that or I will have to swallow a dictionary in the mean time.....

Yes but, do yah think they need fans?

Dallas

Ooh, Team Debates!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
This might be a good argument for team debates if we could just work out the pesky logistics. Then it wouldn't matter if the demands of a real life (purchased at Wal-Mart or wherever) get in the way of a good debate.Either that or each person has a sub waiting to jump in if necessary.

I think it has to be possible to do this. Heck, maybe not even all that hard.

The main issue with team debates is the amount of back-channel communication that has to take place.

The best way to manage team debates may be by setting an established team rotation, with the next member in line stepping in if the first hasn't responded in X days, and the rotation moving forward.

In that model, a team member can essentially take a pass by not responding (or even logging in), making this a "fail-safe" system. The refs can help keep team members straight on who's up next.

Allow team debate contests to go on for longer periods, maybe months, and you could get some extremely memorable collections of arguments on all sorts of things.

I'm on board with the idea of holding team debates, and am willing to do what I can to help make that happen if enough of my fellow members agree they would be a good idea.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Then it wouldn't matter if the demands of a real life (purchased at Wal-Mart or wherever) get in the way of a good debate.

Cheap shot.

Amorymeltzer
The wording wasn't exactly ambiguous, it was WITHIN five years. So that assumes it could happen any time within five years, and because of the delay between the completion of diagnosism of the specific strain and the manufacture of sufficient quantities of vaccine, there's a months-long window for the virus to spread across the globe and kill millions.

Even after we have the vaccine, there will only be enough to innoculate 15-30% of the population..the upper crust of course, and necessary blue collar workers like health care personnel and security peeps to quell the riots when the sick plebes have had enough.

I think the worst case scenario is about as close to global anarchy as you're likely to get without aliens landing or nukes popping off.

HMITD

Reminds me of a good Kendo match where the two skilled opponents circle each other waiting for the chance to strike.

That's an excellent analogy.

Memory Shock
How would you do it? Or is that a discussion for another day?

I still have no idea what either side are trying to argue or where they are going.

You make it sound like we're debating at a higher level, in outer space

This is good input though. I'll try to make my argument clearer in future posts.

I may have said that the debate was going nowhere, but after reading theLibra's first response I think ktprktpr may have to loosen up the ol' pimp hand and start slapping back. The debate has a direction and the game is on!!!!

Originally posted by ktprktpr
The next round will be hell; either theLibra or howmuchisthedoggy. I may have to use the force on that round.

***dis-embodied voice from the corner***
Use the force kptrkptr.....use the foooooorce!!!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I may have said that the debate was going nowhere, but after reading theLibra's first response I think ktprktpr may have to loosen up the ol' pimp hand and start slapping back. The debate has a direction and the game is on!!!!

Why can't we all just get along, and just set a general guideline that I'm right? That'd really make this whole debate thing a lot easier. I could just walk into a thread, post "Nope, it's -this- way..." and people would nod, my opposition would step down, and I'd go on to the next round because, after all, I'd always be right.

Um there seems to be something weirda bout times; my ats time says 9:52 am, yet the post above was made about 12 52 am or so. So How do i know when 24 hours are up beacuse post times seem relative to the poster, not me.

Dallas: What?

Majic: That's kind of what I have in mind. Not to make an ironic analogy, but have any of you played MTG? In a team battle, it can work sort of like that. Players/Members 1 and 2 are against 3 and 4. Order is 1, 3, 2, 4, etc. Players/Members should communicate, spread the damage, and play up their strong points while defending the others' weakpoints. No Type II cards allowed.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Well it's good that he's alright.

I was actually worried, people are dropping like flies in the SW from this heat wave.

Personally, I thought the topic was quite a bit lopsided, in my favor. The possibility of containing and effectively managing a AI pandemic is practically nill. It's a very hard position to argue effectively.

However it didn't have to be argued that it could be contained and stopped, only that it could be be dealt with strongly, that the system could prevent it from getting out of control. And, also, the five year period was included because most recommendations look at what can be done if an outbreak occurs now, five years for now, and ten years from now. So he could argue that with strong measures taken now, it could significantly be stemmed.

howmuchisthedoggy
This might be a good argument for team debates if we could just work out the pesky logistics.

We're actually working on setting up a team debate right now. Have been for a number of weeks actually.

So How do i know when 24 hours are up beacuse post times seem relative to the poster, not me.

When that happens it good to check GMT.

From your opening arguement, WyrdeOne....

We got lucky in 1997, when we narrowly avoided a pandemic, but everyone knows, luck can’t last forever. Leading researchers in the field maintain the opinion that it’s not a question of if we will see another avian flu pandemic, but when.

I would have argued that '97 was an example of how a potential pandemic was identified and then successfully contained..........which would prove OTS's thesis with the kicker that gained experience makes for a better prepared system.........and I would have supplied my own list of "Leading researchers in the field" as well as a walk through of preventive measures and other applicaple conditions......

I'll admit to having fashioned an opening arguement to counter yours, Wyrde, kind of like a home version of the popular gameshow.....as practice....without an edit, I'll say that the rhetoric sans research(which I would have done if I wasn't lazy and had any real reason to) would have put you on your heels........