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.

 

So You Wanna Fight? ATS Debate Tournament (Tournament Update)

page: 21
58
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You have a "Bill of Rights" for Debators and you might also want a "Code of Conduct" for Debate Judges.

Judges should actually not be Judging by which person they like more/less or who they agree with, but on the merit of the Debate and the Debate only.


The judges do judge on the merits of the arguments alone.

Trust me on this one.




posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
You guys talk to much.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You have a "Bill of Rights" for Debators and you might also want a "Code of Conduct" for Debate Judges.

Judges should actually not be Judging by which person they like more/less or who they agree with, but on the merit of the Debate and the Debate only.


The judges do judge on the merits of the arguments alone.

Trust me on this one.



Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You have a "Bill of Rights" for Debators and you might also want a "Code of Conduct" for Debate Judges.

Judges should actually not be Judging by which person they like more/less or who they agree with, but on the merit of the Debate and the Debate only.


The judges do judge on the merits of the arguments alone.

Trust me on this one.


This is absolutely true and failing to abide by the rules of the debate such as not directly answering the questions put to you can cost you points, even if your indirect answer provides a strong argument for your position in the debate.

It's as much about style and the substance of your argument as it is convincing the audience or the judges that your arguments are sound enough to adopt your position.

The judges might not agree personally with the position of pro or con you have been assigned to argue but are simply looking at who presented the best outlined, thorough and written case for their side of the issue, and who stuck within the framework of the rules and the Socratic Debate Principles in the debate.

Stars, member popularity, or personal oppinion on the subject by the judges don't really enter into it.

It really is just about who presented the better structured argument.

By the way judges, my accountant has informed me that all checks and wire transfers to you should have been completed by this time. If you haven't recieved your payment by the preferred method of transference at this point please U2U me so we can effect that payment in a timely way!

Thanks.
edit on 28/10/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: for spelling



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

The judges do judge on the merits of the arguments alone.

Trust me on this one.




Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Stars, member popularity, or personal oppinion on the subject by the judges don't really enter into it.




The times I was asked to judge a debate I was not once briefed on neutrality or on ways of judging. I was not directed to any guidelines for judges.

So I am assuming its the same for other judges.

I just think it would be a good idea to have some kind of "code of conduct" or guideline. Obviously dozens will be called upon to judge and will wonder what the options are.
edit on 28-10-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
This is the latest batch of answers to questions I have received by u2u:


The posts of an opponent may be quoted without limit, however the quotes do count against your character limit.

There is no precise convention on what constitutes a "direct answer" to Socratic Questions at this time, because such conventions could potentially limit the scope of questions or answers. The rule of thumb is more or less, "does it feel intellectually honest", and is generally left for the judges to decide like all other qualitative judgments in debate.

Socratic Questions must be clearly labeled to be binding on the opponent, however there is no strict convention on labeling. "Socratic Question 1:" "SQ 1" or even simply a list of questions at the very bottom of a post have been accepted in the past. Again the feeling of intellectual honesty becomes a rule of thumb in this case: does it appear that the question could have been missed, or is it most likely that the person who was questioned was trying to pull a fast one?

Moderator intervention in a debate in progress is generally reserved for major irregularities. Judge review of questionable incidents after the fact (potentially affecting the decision) is universal.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Stars, member popularity, or personal oppinion on the subject by the judges don't really enter into it.

Thanks.


Not being involved in organizing the Debate-Tournament (since you are a participant, like me) I find it odd how how respond with such certainty about its procedures.
edit on 29-10-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Unless PT is an incarnation of a former ATS debatter......hmmm I smell a conspiracy.


(yeah yeah, I know. I'll butt out......
)

Peace



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
First and foremost, regardless of how anyone might speak, no one participating in the tournament has any information about judging other than what they may have learned by experience with either being judged or volunteering to judge, or by reading past debates in order to glean something from the experience of others, and that information isn't nearly enough to give an unfair advantage.

There are a very few basic common sense standards of conduct, particularly maintaining anonymity and not making judgments based on factors outside of the debate, which already apply to judges, and I can see a strong argument for setting down an authoritative version of these standards in a public thread like the Debate Forum Bill of Rights, etc.

There is one thing that won't happen though:

We won't change the rules in the middle of the game. That is to say we will not adopt a set of criteria, to the exclusion of all others, upon which debates are to be judged, while there are debates in progress. This could theoretically create the potential for arguments which has already begun to be developed to be rendered irrelevant despite being modeled on methods that were legitimized by practice in the past.

So if we go for a more strict definition of how you can and cannot advance your case, that's going to happen while there are not tournament matches in progress, and it will be explained in public before it goes into use.


For now, the guidelines are "whoever does the best job of advancing/defending their case shall be the winner". We can develop those to better suit the interests of the forum and its debaters in the near future if that is desired. I recommend that we kick it around after judgments have come back on the debates currently in progress.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Stars, member popularity, or personal oppinion on the subject by the judges don't really enter into it.

Thanks.


Not being involved in organizing the Debate-Tournament (since you are a participant, like me) I find it odd how how respond with such certainty about its procedures.
edit on 29-10-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


Oh that's easy I bribed all the Judges, they won't say anything contrary!

Just kidding!

Wow it's too early to tell if we will both survive round 1 in the Tournament I sense someone wants a rematch, and wonders if there was any magic in PT winning our last debate by unanimous decision of the Judges in every round!



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Unless PT is an incarnation of a former ATS debatter......hmmm I smell a conspiracy.


(yeah yeah, I know. I'll butt out......
)

Peace


Popular theories here on ATS include PT is the Anti-Christ and PT is Caesar incarnate.

Yet truth be known, I am actually Ethel Merman in disguise...

Hit it boys...

"No body knows show business like I know show business"

Da-da-da-duh-da-da-duh



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You ever hear the theory that it isn't the barking dog that you have to worry about?

Me thinks PT is a little too overeager with all of this posturing and intimidation. I happen to be a big fan of PT and love the style of prose and creativity, but I'm starting to smell a little blood in the water???? Is this huge distraction part of a plan to cover some consequential ineptness?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You ever hear the theory that it isn't the barking dog that you have to worry about?

Me thinks PT is a little too overeager with all of this posturing and intimidation. I happen to be a big fan of PT and love the style of prose and creativity, but I'm starting to smell a little blood in the water???? Is this huge distraction part of a plan to cover some consequential ineptness?


I want this to be a fair fight, in Golf they call this a handicap.

So in recent days I have taken the liberty to first really agravate every other debator!

Yet that was not enough, so I endeavored then to conspire to do something that was sure to annoy every moderator on the board (thus the judges) and pick up a warning tag in the process, signifying I am just a bad, bad, very bad, did I mention really bad egg?

Since it's not humanly possible for me to degrade the quality of my arguments, it became necessary to bias everyone against the person making those arguments.

Thus I have restored hope to the debators, convincing them that yes, it's humanly possible for one of them to win this debate, while at the same time presenting quality arguments in the debate and presentation that make it clear I am not throwing the debate.

With a huge target on my back as the #2 seeded poster on ATS of all time, that has already caused me no small measure of consternation on behalf of some members unhappy with the rankings, I need that Debate Champion Crown like I need another hole in my head.

But I remain convinced that the best place for newer and existing members to hone the quality of their arguments is in the debate forum, and that it's an important and vital part of what makes ATS a quality site, so I feel compelled to paticipate simply because of my stature.

Since I am convinced no one but me can take me down to size I have done just that. The contest is now fair.

There is always a method to my madness!


edit on 29/10/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: spelling



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I am easing my way back into the process and can already start feeling the old juices flowing...my next response will be uncharacteristic of my first two posts...

Hey, there was talk of creating a BTS thread for debate commentary? Should one be started or is this thread sufficient for the duration of the tournament? I'm just thinking that some of The Vagabond's posts shouldn't get lost...



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 





Hey, there was talk of creating a BTS thread for debate commentary? Should one be started or is this thread sufficient for the duration of the tournament? I'm just thinking that some of The Vagabond's posts shouldn't get lost...


It wouldn't hurt to make a BTS thread would it? After all, like you say, we wouldn't want to get important information lost would we?.. (especially as The Vagabond is seemingly updating this thread with answers to certain questions he's received)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Personally I think this thread is sufficient, as I am unlikely to participate in another thread that would be started. You are correct about Vagabond's stuff getting lost, but every so often we can quote or refer back to it to keep it fresh.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Yes, that bright red WARNING tag on your profile did make me take a double take! I never expected such behavior from you PT, and you should be ashamed!


On the other hand, I have had such a tag on my profile once or twice, and it caught me by complete surprise, so I understand how it can happen. You have already proven yourself smarter than me, because my first tag led directly to my second tag, because I don't know when to leave things alone.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I will go back and compile all relevant information into a separate thread for easy reference. We can also get a tournament commentary BTS thread going if desired. Let's just remember that debate discussion needs to stay away from the merits of the cases or advice on how to argue.

Also, whether we have another thread or keep this one, one thing we need to keep in mind when we get into having fun and psyching each other out we also need to continue to express the camaraderie and spirit of cooperation which has always been a part of this forum (and which has been demonstrated well in this tournament on a few occasions already, to everyone's credit). I have no problem with debaters cultivating images that make opponents wonder what clever tactic they might pull out of their hat next, but we need to at all times make sure that a member who just joined ATS today can quickly ascertain that this is a fun and friendly pursuit, and not one where there are any social or other consequences for any well meaning effort, regardless of skill or anything else.

In short, what we don't want to do is #1. Create a very large, very rowdy, mostly irrelevant thread that turns our open forum into an esoteric clique in the eyes of people who weren't here from the beginning- that will cost us the opportunity to bring in new talent. #2. unintentionally succeed in intimidating anyone-especially newcomers- through what was meant to be good-natured posturing.

Within those guidelines I'm fine with and will try to materially support anything you guys want to do to support and develop the social aspect of the tournament. And as I said, I will consolidate the actual relevant information for easy access before the end of today.
edit on Fri 29 Oct 2010 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Sorry guys, ended up chaperoning a party full of annoying kids tonight so I won't be compiling all the threads just yet. You can use "view posts in thread" on my mini-profile to cut the thread just down to my posts and skim for what you need until then. That won't last very long before I get things together.

Vagabond's posts in this thread



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
usually i don.t post very much in this thread
but for a couple of days i have the feeling that i should.
i don.t want to bribe anybody or adulate somebody, i just want to say honestly thank you to the vagabond!

you are really doing a good job by hosting this tournament and by replying to all the questions we have in this thread.
i really feel well looked after, like a tennis player who gets help by her coach.

so thanks a bunch for that! :thu:

my head can just concentrate on the debate



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by orange-light
 


Dito!! Thank you all who are involved in organizing and running this competition!!

I must say it is a delight to be following all the different debates and every time a post is put up I am convinced there is no way the opponent can top it. Only to be proven wrong with a brilliant reply.

I'd hate to be a judge in one of these discussions!!

I am growing more insecure but also more anxious to participate myself. I have links to dictionary and translation sites ready to go. I'll make an extra effort in my spelling (unlike this post), I promise.....


Peace



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
You'll do great, operation mindcrime...I loved my first few debates as the learning process was unparalleled.

On a side note, I just noticed that, directly before my Socratic Question #3, there is an unattributed quote from hotbakedtater...my apologies for the faux paus...



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join