Fight Club Pub.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by americandingbat

 

Really good use of rhetoric can tie another fighter in knots and have them responding to your argument rather than framing one of their own - as soon as that happens you can nearly always say a debate is in the bag.

That's good to know.


Well done Osci and Irish on a great debate.

It is always kosher to ask questions.

Originally posted by americandingbat
But I'm curious about other Fighters' reactions to this point by the third judge:

I think the judge may have been referring to the fact that Irish went over the allotted number of sentences for external sourcing...something like 16 sentences of external source when ten is stipulated as acceptable.

As for the expression of his/her's opinion...I agree that part could have been left out (I never edit a judge's ruling; not even for grammar so as to protect the integrity of the process). While I happen to agree with the judge that debates are more of an excercise for the Fighters to rhetorically go at it, judging should be without immaterial opinions.

That said, it is unrealistic to not have external sourcing. It helps to corroborate opinion and fact and gives credibility to our debates...especially with the range of topics we encounter.

So yeah, I think the judge was referring to the excess sourcing rather than the sourcing itself, though I feel that a personal opinion like that need not be included as it isn't germaine to the ruling.

reply to post by americandingbat


Thanks everyone, in response to the comment in the third judgment. I don't really know what to say. If it was up to me personally, I'd forgo sources altogether, however, I was landed with a random topic and a random stance with little time (the same goes for m1ck I'm sure).

I can see why the debate was less entertaining or perhaps "skillful" because of it, but frankly I had never entertained the topic before. We were "landed" the subject and had to learn as we go, and having few facts to stand on we could only really read up and post at the same time.

I think we did a good job as it was all on the fly, without any prior knowledge. An opening statement within 24 hours of being told what it is that you are arguing (factoring in work), means constructing something from nothing in a few hours.

For future reference I'll keep it mind, definitely, I think it is a valid point. But I believe both m1ck and I, did well in context. Bear in mind we are also both fairly new and these considerations come after judgments such as these.

I ramble.

Thanks to all the judges and FC members for reading the debate and cheering us on, and thanks to m1ck for making me laugh and cry at intervals



[edit on 5-12-2008 by Oscitate]

First of all, congratulations to Oscitate for the win!

reply to post by americandingbat


That surprised me, too. Some debates you just can't help but have to source and back up what you say with facts. The organic food debate is something you really can't get into without touching on nutritional information, cost statistics, and very technical information. I guess it depends on the judge because one of the things held against me was that I didn't source enough (but that also was partially my fault because I didn't understand the 'link limit' and thought it was 5 links total- not 5 sites limit). I was even told about the unspoken rule of having commentary over sourcing (in u2u that is- not in the judgment). I guess an even blend of both is the way to go so we can be safe?

Edit: Ok. I just now saw MS's reply. That makes sense. Not trying to bash the judge at all. I was just curious about that, too.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by AshleyD]

I'm surprised neither fighter tried the companion planting approach - this could have given weight to either side of the debate.

It was still a good debate though - and kudos for tackling it, having known little about it.
I know I don't like debating something I know little about.

Wow, thanks everyone for the responses. I was only worried about the kosherness of the question because it involved singling out an anonymous judge, who obviously can't explain their comment.

Oscitate: you both did an excellent job in my opinion. But you might want to inquire into IrishMick's past lives

Mr. Shock, thanks for the background on the procedure – I've always wondered if the judges' comments were cut in any way (other than for anonymity). I see what you're saying about the comment being unnecessary in the context of a judgment, but how do you feel about it as critique of the direction the Debate Forum is going?

I mean, there will always be topics that require more "facts" and topics that require more "logic", but is there a trend toward either taking on more of the first sort of topic, or treating all topics more in the terms of the first sort?

It's hard for me to make an absolute judgment, since the format of the debates has changed so much over the years, but as I think about it I can see that it may be true.

Is it a bad thing? good thing? neutral thing?


Are we just finding a balance, as people have said, between sourcing and rhetoric? Or are we losing our balance?

budski: you make a good point about the different roles of argument and sourcing. But what about when a debate starts to focus on rebuttal of one anothers' sources rather than one anothers' argument (as I think happened to some extent here, and certainly in TWISI and my debate)?

Originally posted by americandingbat

Are we just finding a balance, as people have said, between sourcing and rhetoric? Or are we losing our balance?

That's the question isn't it. At the end of the day we cater to the jury, and we can't expect the jury to all agree. It would be idyllic (or nightmarish, depending) to have a homogeneous panel. Frankly, it may seem like I'm ranting, but I feel emboldened by the criticism, and it makes me want to try harder.

At the end of the day I'd love to know how to weigh my arguments, but thats just wishful thinking. The rest will come with experience



[edit on 5-12-2008 by Oscitate]

Originally posted by americandingbat

budski: you make a good point about the different roles of argument and sourcing. But what about when a debate starts to focus on rebuttal of one anothers' sources rather than one anothers' argument (as I think happened to some extent here, and certainly in TWISI and my debate)?

In my limited experience, I think that the rebuttal of sources can take up too much time - by all means, cast doubt on a source, but personally I wouldn't make it the focus of a debate as it tends to lead away from the topic and can sometimes focus too mcuh attention on the minutiae rather than the bigger picture.

IMO, by focussing too much on the sources, a fighter can run the risk of turning down a dead end street and leaving nowhere to turn - much better to throw in a bit of nasty rhetoric to refute a source, but then leave it at that, and let the opponent come to you

reply to post by budski


Keep going, I am learning so much.

Originally posted by americandingbat
...but how do you feel about it as critique of the direction the Debate Forum is going?

...but is there a trend toward either taking on more of the first sort of topic, or treating all topics more in the terms of the first sort?

Is it a bad thing? good thing? neutral thing?

IN my opinion, each debate should take on a life of its' own seeing as many debates are random topics and the opponents are rarely the same (even if two Fighters have faced each other before there is a change based on subsequent experience and thought process').

With that in mind, it is unreasonable to stipulate how many sentences or sources should be used that is not the Fighters own work...A social issue or abstract topic will likely incur more rhetoric and less external sourcing while a more technical topic, such as Global Warming, will likely stretch the sourcing to its' limits.

So it really depends on the topic and the Fighters. The '10 sentence external source' rule is there as a guideline, as an encouragement and reminder to the Fighter to use their own rhetoric as often as possible and to rely on their technique rather than a third party to win their position. That is what we are about here...to provide our analysis and thoughts on any given subject rather than rehash others thoughts. The use of third party works, however, does give the Fighter a tool to use for 'emphasis' and corroboration, which can be very valuable as evidenced in the past.

As for whatever trend I percieve the forum heading, I think that the different techniques and personalities, as we continue to grow, is nothing but a positive. And that is what I see. I have learned alot from the new Fighters (believe it or not) and it always strikes me when I see a debate go in a way that I didn't expect.

That is the trend I see...growth and the implicit addition of more and different perspectives and subtle strategies.

That can only benefit all who frequent this forum.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


You think?

Oh Goody

Are you scandinavian?
Do you like herrings?

reply to post by budski


I see.

[budskihide]note to self, Budski gets easily irritated, more useful information for our impending debate.[/budskihide]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


A poor comeback - more deputy dog than schrodingers dog

Have some football to calm you down

Sdog, you won't even have this number of legs to stand on

Originally posted by MemoryShock
As for whatever trend I percieve the forum heading, I think that the different techniques and personalities, as we continue to grow, is nothing but a positive. And that is what I see. I have learned alot from the new Fighters (believe it or not) and it always strikes me when I see a debate go in a way that I didn't expect.

That is the trend I see...growth and the implicit addition of more and different perspectives and subtle strategies.

That can only benefit all who frequent this forum.

Have you considered going into politics Mr. Shock? With feel-good rhetoric like that, who needs positions?

But thanks anyway. I appreciate all forms of answer

reply to post by budski

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Purple ain't your colour.

It makes you look slightly bilious

reply to post by budski


You're the one with the herring, penguins like herring don't they?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Usually not red ones

But apparently you do

reply to post by budski


Tis no longer a mere skirmish...