reply to post by GAOTU789
Before the debate started, i sent a meesage saying that I wanted the pro side of the debate.
didn't happen.
congrats to my opponent, I'll add you.
congrats to me, too
lmao
drunk and silly
First Member Judged Debates and First-Timers-Only Tournament, page 5
privacy
(I was checking the debate forum list regularly and suddenly noticed that this wasn't part
of it) 
Told me I should be a lawyer ... no thanks. reply posted on 10-10-2007 @ 10:43 AM by The Vagabond
Interpret the question in a way that favors your side but is plausible.
Decide on 3 major parts of the debate or 3 types of evidence if the topic itself is narrow, so that each of your body posts attacks from a different angle.
In your intro, first separate yourself from any weakness in your position- for example if the topic is "Hitler had great fashion sense" and you've got the pro position, you obviously want to start out by saying bad things about Hitler and making it clear that the only thing you're defending is the funny hats and tall boots.
Then establish ethical boundaries if need be: in the above example, I'd immediately refuse to engage on any question related to the holocaust because its irrelevant and I refuse to defend it. You thereby take the highground in avoiding some very loaded questions.
Then lay out the subjects or types of evidence you will cover, a series of 3-6 points that will be proven, and an explanation of how those 3-6 premises imply the conclusion that your position is correct.
Take one subject or type of evidence per post. Try to split your post 2/3s for your own case, 1/3 for rebuttals. Minimize quoting. Use your links like citations in an academic paper- it's efficient.
Use subheadings to help the reader keep track of what you're talking about, with bolded or underlined summary sentences when appropriate, bulleted lists if needbe, etc.
Whenever your opponent changes subjects or types of evidence, fails to answer a question, contradicts himself, or goes away from any outline he might have presented, nail him on it. Never miss an opportunity to hold their feet to the fire, but also never pretend the did something when they didn't- people will notice.
I always help the judges keep score- I always point out when my opponent has to retreat, and in the conclusion i tally up how many times I got him.
I've also been known to try and characterize my opponent's future arguments, but that is very dangerous, and really I do it too much. It is worth doing when you think you are more familiar with the subject than your opponent and you want to scare him away from his best hope by making it look like you already have that covered.
Also, feel free to make a contact sport out of this. Use sarcasm, humor, and quotes from your opponent in ironic contexts. You don't want to be outright mean, but when I debate, I often am trying to get under the opponents skin. The goal is to be funny and good-natured about it, so that when he gets upset, it's only because he's taking things too personally, so it's all his fault. You also would be better off admitting and laughing about your mistakes than trying to deny them.
If you want to see that in action, read the debate final between me and rdube www.abovetopsecret.com... We really had at eachother.
If you want to see how that can backfire, read the debate between me and Zenlover. That was my worst debate ever. I went way too far and I made some really stupid mistakes. I had to bring my A-game to the final to be forgiven for that one.
Decide on 3 major parts of the debate or 3 types of evidence if the topic itself is narrow, so that each of your body posts attacks from a different angle.
In your intro, first separate yourself from any weakness in your position- for example if the topic is "Hitler had great fashion sense" and you've got the pro position, you obviously want to start out by saying bad things about Hitler and making it clear that the only thing you're defending is the funny hats and tall boots.
Then establish ethical boundaries if need be: in the above example, I'd immediately refuse to engage on any question related to the holocaust because its irrelevant and I refuse to defend it. You thereby take the highground in avoiding some very loaded questions.
Then lay out the subjects or types of evidence you will cover, a series of 3-6 points that will be proven, and an explanation of how those 3-6 premises imply the conclusion that your position is correct.
Take one subject or type of evidence per post. Try to split your post 2/3s for your own case, 1/3 for rebuttals. Minimize quoting. Use your links like citations in an academic paper- it's efficient.
Use subheadings to help the reader keep track of what you're talking about, with bolded or underlined summary sentences when appropriate, bulleted lists if needbe, etc.
Whenever your opponent changes subjects or types of evidence, fails to answer a question, contradicts himself, or goes away from any outline he might have presented, nail him on it. Never miss an opportunity to hold their feet to the fire, but also never pretend the did something when they didn't- people will notice.
I always help the judges keep score- I always point out when my opponent has to retreat, and in the conclusion i tally up how many times I got him.
I've also been known to try and characterize my opponent's future arguments, but that is very dangerous, and really I do it too much. It is worth doing when you think you are more familiar with the subject than your opponent and you want to scare him away from his best hope by making it look like you already have that covered.
Also, feel free to make a contact sport out of this. Use sarcasm, humor, and quotes from your opponent in ironic contexts. You don't want to be outright mean, but when I debate, I often am trying to get under the opponents skin. The goal is to be funny and good-natured about it, so that when he gets upset, it's only because he's taking things too personally, so it's all his fault. You also would be better off admitting and laughing about your mistakes than trying to deny them.
If you want to see that in action, read the debate final between me and rdube www.abovetopsecret.com... We really had at eachother.
If you want to see how that can backfire, read the debate between me and Zenlover. That was my worst debate ever. I went way too far and I made some really stupid mistakes. I had to bring my A-game to the final to be forgiven for that one.
reply posted on 10-10-2007 @ 02:44 PM by GAOTU789
reply to post by semperfortis
Now this I would like to see. The reigning champ versus a former champ. I'm sure most of ATS would be watching this one closely. Do it up Vagabond, Iit would be like an ATS Super Cup.
Now this I would like to see. The reigning champ versus a former champ. I'm sure most of ATS would be watching this one closely. Do it up Vagabond, Iit would be like an ATS Super Cup.
reply posted on 10-10-2007 @ 02:52 PM by Skyfloating
reply to post by GAOTU789
I think your and budskis debate was the closest one. I was under the impression that you had won it only to return a few days later and see the tides had turned.
I think your and budskis debate was the closest one. I was under the impression that you had won it only to return a few days later and see the tides had turned.
