The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters

reply to post by Druid42


Oh no's... I've been spotted

By the way what is the etiquette for staring an opponents post?

I stared adjensen's well crafted reply, but wasn't sure if I should or not.


SS

reply to post by Druid42




It took me a second to understand... I was too vague in my previous post. I didn't mean "ATS topics" - I meant ATS itself. An example "Should subject x be against the T&C" - site or policy related topics. That is the sort of thing we're wanting to avoid.

As for subjects ATS covers? Open playing field!

~Heff

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


Its alright to star your opponents post. It may be difficult, but its good to.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Must really not have thought much of my starless post in our debate, then?

(I don't even feel bad because your post only has one, and it's from me. Guess I'm just the gentleman here.)

Originally posted by Hefficide
As for subjects ATS covers? Open playing field!

Open ended: "Why has the Randi prize never been claimed, and will it ever be?"

Pro/Con: "There has never been credible evidence of alien visitations on Earth."

I've been sick all week. I'll try to get my next post up today but this damn fever makes it hard to look at the screen.

My closing post in the Hollywood debate is in and with that I end the debate.

Thanks Druid. It was great to go against you here.

To the judges it goes..

Second post up in the Great Animation Debate.

reply to post by intrepid


I was wondering what happened to you!

Take your time. I am not in a hurry and would rather you got to feeling better.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Assuming the judges will go by content, not stars, I happily returned the favor

The whole point of starring your opponent's post is resolved by simply using the purpose of stars. You give one out to a post you like.

You may be in a debate, but sportsmanship dictates that if you like your opponent's response, you give a star to it, period.

Personally, since it is a debate, and I like how my opponents do respond, I always give one star to each post. It's a trivial matter, but heck, if they took all that time to research, think their post through, and then decide to stick it with no chance of editing, it deserves a star. For me, I star before I even read. Because it is a debate, and I may not like what I read, I give the star out first, then settle in to my opponent's reply. I can't take a star back, so it's a gesture that means you get at least three stars for agreeing to a debate with myself.

That's just me.

reply to post by Druid42


I agree, plus it messes with your "W" and "K" scores if you post something and don't get any stars for it. Of course, "W" and "K" scores only mean something for competitive OCD types like me, but still...

reply to post by adjensen


Well, I just starred that reply.

I wouldn't want your "K" & "W" scores to be all messed up...

Hello all, my 3rd and final post is upThe Great Animated Debate

I would like to thank adjensen again for giving me this chance, and the forum members for patience, judging, and time.


SS

I have an idea. Instead of having the pro side open, maybe the challenger should open? I think it seems suitable.

reply to post by curiousrb


When I was part of the debate teams in HS and college, it was important for the Pro -side to make their argument first so that the Con-side knew the exact context in which the Pro-side approached a certain topic.....and how to attack their arguments.

Just my two cents.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Fair enough. I just thought it could be good, because the one that wants to have the debate should start it off as they have more of an idea about what his exact topic is. He knows what needs to be covered. This could make it so the person who accepted the debate knows exactly what needs to be addressed rather than going of just the question.

reply to post by curiousrb


That's a bit different then letting the Con side open...and I think it's a good idea. The Con may not always be the opener but will allow the person that thought of the debate topic to set the parameters of the debate.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Thanks man

It is only an idea, If it was trialled and proved to be unsuccessful, the conventional method would be fine.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

That's a bit different then letting the Con side open...and I think it's a good idea. The Con may not always be the opener but will allow the person that thought of the debate topic to set the parameters of the debate.

One can kind of make any argument allow for the "con" position to be "pro". For example, if one wanted to debate on the existence of Bigfoot, the skeptic can open by making the subject of the debate "There is no evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot."