Debate Tournament Commentary

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Hmmm, WyrdeOne, thelibra, do I sense a grudge match brewing?

Hmm, could the folks running the debate be getting some ideas for a future match? Y'all may have just gotten a heads up from Amory on a topic ya'd better start researching!...Or not.

I think its fine to talk up # about the other person. Its best to keep it to a minimum cause it eats into your word count, but it can provide some laughter. Another benefit is sometimes your opponent gets stupid when you call him a mamma boys commie lover, so that can only help

I never really cared for these debate "games".. thats how I see them.. games.

People signup, are given a debate topic they know little about, and are expected to make a logical explanation on limited knowledge acheived within the time given..

Why not ask people that have been vigorously debating certain topics, (like HowardRoark and 9/11), to come and debate with someone that strongly debates 9/11 and conspiracy)...

Just an example.. it'd make for a much more vigorous debate, not to mention, knowledge packed.


Besides, a civil debate is really need on some topics. The second someone disagrees on a subject, they start belittling the original thinker.. really degrades a thread..


Oh oh, second edit here..

Why not teams of debators? Why does it always have to be 1v1? I came name 6 very prominent debators in the 9/11 field off the top of my head right now.. why not gather the huge debators and let em go at it in a controlled enviroment?
[edit on 6/29/2005 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 6/29/2005 by QuietSoul]

Amorymeltzer, I think I just might go for that grudge match if the line isn't too long. lol. Frankly I really doubt I'd win if I argued my true beliefs, because my views on government and international relations are cynical at best, or the seeds of neo-conservatism at worst. All the same, I've spent the last four years (since government class in highschool) building a theory to elaborate on Locke's explanation of government and I'm always happy to discuss it. In short, all rule is by force. As Heinlen wrote, "violence (is) the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived". I hope Heinlen actually wrote that- I actually just watched the movie. But at any rate, I am convinced that there can never be freedom. Only war and oppression. If I waved a magic wand and fixed all of the worlds problems right now, approximately 3.14 nano-seconds later, somewhere in the world, a father would tell his kids they were ordering pizza, they would argue over toppings, and thus conflict (war) and oppression (the limitation of your ability to do exactly what you want) would reenter the world.

WyrdeOne suggests that Americans should first reclaim their independence.

America and Americans are among the most free of all nations and people, although that's not saying much as every single difference of opinion in this entire world is a miniature war which results in someone's subjegation, to one degree or another.
America is free/independent because we usually win our wars, from the shooting ones right down to the very smallest ones such as extradition disputes.
Americans are free because most of the wars they fight as individuals in their daily lives are small by comparison to the difficulties of foreign citizens. The biggest war we really lose as individuals is taxation, and we do not surrender unconditionally. We get a hell of a lot of bang for our buck compared to other nations which get very little more for much more significant sacrifices. Just for example, because our nation is so large, has so much wealth, and requires so much in the way of infrastructure, our government needs things built to last, so our government always uses union tradesmen. The concession- more taxation to pay higher union wages. The gain- quality infrastructure, a substantial reduction in the burden on other federal handout programs (as anyone however poor has the option to make something of himself by learning a trade at a union apprenticeship program), and of course a stronger economy for all to enjoy, as this system creates a strong flow of wages to working people to stimulate circulation of money and economic growth, as opposed to many nations where no aspect of public works escapes the ability of big business to rape the working man, stagnating the economy for everyone so that the rich can horde wealth for foreign expenditure (usually expending that cash into the US economy in fact).

As it is, the holiday is little more than an excuse to drink beer and blow stuff up.

We're supposed to have an excuse prepared when we do that? I've always just plainly declared my intention to drink beer and blow stuff up, and nobody has ever bothered me about needing a reason. Now quit your complaining and go buy some good ol' American-made whiskey. Deep down you know you're grateful that somebody finally got it right and you love us for it.

I also wanted to say, I think some of y'all have been watching too many presidential debates, and taking inspiration from the big boys' nasty ways.

There is a reason for virtually every attribute of such a debating style.

First you have to consider that the judges probably have a political affiliation of some kind and respect some politician somewhere, and when they assign a voice to your arguements you want it to be the voice of their favorite politician, because that's someone they think of as being well informed, worth following, and correct on the issues. By using a certain vocabulary and syntax, by presenting your arguements in a certain format, etc you want to emulate a popular public figure to the extent that the judges will percieve it and say "wow, this guy should write speeches for (Fill in the blank)"

Then of course you want to confuse your opponent. You want to be just complex enough that he might misunderstand something or fail to respond to something because he couldn't figure it out, but you want to do this without going so far over the top that a -majority- of the judges will fail to understand too. If I get it just right, maybe 60% of the judges will understand what I'm saying and my opponent will not, and the point in question will go my way without contest. Better still, my opponent might mistake my meaning and open up an opportunity for me to roast him for not paying attention.

Third, there is no intellectual openness in politics. The other side COULD NOT be right to any extent. You want to imply this without saying it in these debates. The way to do that is to mirror what we see in political debates- hammering youir most salient points in series and follow them with a slow and strongly emphasized blanet-statement against your opponent's argument. For example-
setup: There is no doubt that Chewbacca lives on Endor. There is no explanation for why Chewbacca would live on Endor.
punchline: My opponent would have you believe this that and the other, but he can't explain what Chewbacca is doing on Endor!

See how you get to summarily dismiss "this that and the other" with great certainty, without explicitly saying that "this that and the other" isn't true, just because your opponent can't reconcile that with Chewie? That's why you emulate a politician- so you can dance around the facts like one.

Wish I had got into it.....sniff....

Originally posted by QuietSoul
I never really cared for these debate "games".. thats how I see them.. games.

...

Why not ask people that have been vigorously debating certain topics, (like HowardRoark and 9/11), to come and debate with someone that strongly debates 9/11 and conspiracy)...

Well, the thing is you aren't going to get very many people, if any, outside a certain set of topics. For instance, forgiving african debt. Most people whoe frequent ats, while thye might care, won't step up to the plate and debate. The onlyt hings we'll get debated are 9/11, American "Imperialism," UFOS and things like that. And if once the debates start, you're not going to repeat a topic so we'll quickly run out of topics.

So, you have to force a variety of topics upon those that are willing. That's where these debate "games" come in. And being a game or not has little effect on its impact. So if you're arguing for impassioned debaters, realize that it's unrealistic because of the limited number and positions on the arguments.

I think ATS debates have picked a fairly good way to go about things.

Okay, lovely post The Vagabond, but just a wee bit off topic, no? That goes for the rest of ya, too!

I'm with ktprktpr here. Be nice if you want, but feel free to get your shoes a little muddy. Keep it highbrow because a debate is still a debate, but what argument would be complete without a few ad-hominem attacks? Easiest way to discredit your opponent is to discredit their person.

Quietsoul - This is a debate tournament. It really is a good system. Being able to debate topics you're unfamiliar with or disagree with are great ways to hone your skills. You get a much better debate that way. Besides, this is how anything outside of ATS topics get get debated.

An oft untakenadvantageof feature is the ability to have one-on-one debates as you like. Grudge matches. If you ever desire to duke it out with a member, go for it! Get a resolution, pick sides and a format and you're set to go. Nobody does it, which is too bad, but I'd really like to encourage these things - they're really a lot of fun. There's no "line," vaga, just the time of the forum mods. And mods obviously aren't real people with lives, so no problem. Really, it'd be our pleasure to set one up.

As for multiple member debates, also possible. Harder logistically to set up because the members on a team have to coordinate and attack and defend as such. It could easily devolve into something along these lines, but an earlier suggestion for a round-robin sort of tournament could help that idea along nicely.

[edit on 11/17/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

Now quit your complaining and go buy some good ol' American-made whiskey. Deep down you know you're grateful that somebody finally got it right and you love us for it.

Oh..it's on!

Whiskey was invented, tested to the nth degree, and perfected, before Jim Beam was a twinkle in a drunk man's eye, even before all those boogers swarmed off the boats. We've got the whisk(e)y angle covered, America can take a fookin' nap. The situation is under control, repeat, the situation is under control.



Amory

As for multiple member debates, also possible. Harder logistically to set up because the members on a team have to coordinate and attack and defend as such. It could easily devolve into something along these lines, but an earlier suggestion for a round-robin sort of tournament could help that idea along nicely.

What about two on one? That would be a blast!

[edit on 29-6-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Yeah, a two on one debate would be an interesting exhibition. Maybe 20 on 1. I'll be the 1.
-Has visions of himself as Darth Maul, fighting off two Jedi-

About the line... I meant the line to challenge WyrdeOne to a grudge match after his comments.

As for Whiskey (not purely a language dispute by the way- American and Irish forms are spelled with an "e" no matter where you are, while Scottland, Canda, Japan and other forms are spelled with no "e" no matter where you are.) I prefer the Gaelic spelling myself as the word actually means something in that language- Water of Life.

I've got my sources all lined up and we can debate that sometime. Speaking of which, exactly who are "you" who have it under control? Irish? Scotts? Canadians? If you're Canadian- why does everything always have to be blended, is this a subconcious manifestation of issues relating to Quebec? If you're Irish- no thanks, I'll pass on the peat. If you're Scottish you're doing a tad better than the others but can you really not afford new barrels? No sherry in my bourbon please. Just plain old Kentucky corn juice for me.

So final thought... what were you saying about going off topic Amory? sorry.

Despite what the green-islanders might tell you about dear old St. Patrick inventing the sauce, it was in fact a Scotsman.

Sorry, I'm contributing to the derailment of this thread, I'll go hibernate now, with my hate for American mash liquor to keep me warm of course.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If you're Irish- no thanks, I'll pass on the peat.

Can't let that slide dude.... I have yet to taste Uisce Beatha which can beat a smooth Jameson 12 or a Power's Hot Whiskey, never mind a Paddy and Coke.

You can keep your corn juice!

p.s. Japanese Burai-hai or even Suntory ain't half bad...take it from a whiskey drinker of many years......

www.belowtopsecret.com...
Here is my BTS Whisk(e)y thread- now let's get back on topic before Amorymeltzer whacks me with the ban-hammer.

I'm glad Vagabond took up the grudge match instead of me... I just barely managed to make it through one debate without pulling me hair out.

...hmm, feelin' a bit like Dick Garnet here...heh, and going on a Civil War binge, to boot.

WTF!

Odium has forfeited the debate due to counts of plagiarism. junglejake advances.

That's disgusting. if you can't win, at least lose gracefully. Almighty!

Originally posted by ktprktpr
WTF!

Odium has forfeited the debate due to counts of plagiarism. junglejake advances.

That's disgusting. if you can't win, at least lose gracefully. Almighty!

It's a bit more complicated than it appears on the surface. The post in question is his opening statement, and it looks like it was just a slip-up. Y=If you read through it carefully, you'll notice he goes from thirdly to fifthly, with no fourthly in there. He also has a source referenced that he didn't use. It really looks to me like he caught himself using too many sources in his opening statement, got rid of one of his references, and deleted the wrong source.

Regardless, Odium put up a great fight, and when it was all over and done with, I had assumed he had won. This just doesn't feel right...Guess I'll have to prove myself in the next debate.

Not to rush anybody, but I've been pacing ever since I made my final statment and will be needing new carpet shortly as a result. Getting a decision tomorrow would save me a lot of money .

I publically retract my statement towards Odium. there is always more than meets the eye for any given situation.

ATSNN and the Royal Society just really ticked me off. I really could have used the following excerpt in my debate if it had been reported three days ago.

The oceans are gradually turning into a vast “fizzy drink”, a transformation that could be catastrophic for ocean life. Levels of carbonic acid - the reaction product of water and carbon dioxide that is found in soda water - are increasing at a rate one hundred times faster than the world has seen for millions of years.

I don't mind the wait on finding out who won, but rather, do we have an answer yet on when the next round will start? I'd hate to waste valuable drinking and demolitions time running to my PC to check and see if the next round started yet, only to find it won't happen till at least the 5th. I'd hate even more to find I logged on only to find I had about 5 minutes to post my opening statement.

Can anyone please give us an answer on the timeframes, or at least state that a forgiveness period for late replies till the night of the 5th is in order?