posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:45 AM
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by GAOTU789
I second Druid in saying that three posts for a debate is simply not enough space. While any longer debate can be time consuming, it is the amount of
space that is needed in order to adequately state your case and argue against your opponent.
To shorten to only three posts means that the debates themselves will be severely lacking.
edit on 18-8-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no
Just to add opinion a bit ...
I had trouble finishing one debate I was in not
because I had to make too many posts but because of the topic primarily.
My first debate was on the Mayan calendar which was fine. I had to do some reading but it wasn't over the top. My next debate was on whether or not
India should be allowed into the UN security council. Making this debate three posts wouldn't have made it any easier but actually harder. I had some
RL issues then too but I *could've* done it if I didn't have to do so much research.
With the UN Security Council debate I had to familiarise myself with a huge amount of information very quickly and manage to post it in a short space,
well structured, and at the same time explain terms. It made it impossible to actually sit down and find a few hours to do all of those things at once
in a single sitting.
Helpful things would be:
#1 Being given study time perhaps for hard ones. Study time being sometime before the debate to read up on the topic if we're unfamiliar with it.
#2 Being told exactly the information judges are meant to be familiar with ... This might seem a small issue but in the realms of the Mayan calendar
it involves some explaining and in the realms of the UN Security Council it was incredibly hard not knowing what the judges knew or didn't know.
#3 For blind debates it would be nice perhaps to have choices of topic and being able to eliminate one each in the interests of knowing when a
particular debate is going to end hideously.