Proposed format for moderated debate on the forum

[Oliver]

Proposed format for moderated debate

1) a) The side arguing for the proposition (Side A) shall post first.
Side A shall post an introduction that shall state the proposition they will be defending and five points that they will argue in defense of the proposition. One post in length. *snip*

Why so complicated?

A. Asks aquestion

B. Answers and asks a new question.

A. Answers and asks a new question.

....

No counterquestions allowed.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why so complicated?

A. Asks aquestion

B. Answers and asks a new question.

A. Answers and asks a new question.

....

No counterquestions allowed.

Because that isn't how formal debates are set up.

 

[Oliver]

Because that isn't how formal debates are set up.

But it´s the easiest and fairest form to debate.
And things don´t went off-track because to much
information or questions... I guess.


...No questions or answers gets lost...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But it´s the easiest and fairest form to debate.
And things don´t went off-track because to much
information or questions... I guess.


...No questions or answers gets lost...

The purpose of a formal debate is to keep the discussion focused tightly on one issue; and to force the two parties to present their cases in as succinct, and thorough manner possible. Your suggestion works well for round-table discussions but does tend to lead to topic drift, and is easier to exploit to avoid addressing (count)points. A more formal setup prevents this from occurring.

 

[Oliver]

The purpose of a formal debate is to keep the discussion focused tightly on one issue; and to force the two parties to present their cases in as succinct, and thorough manner possible. Your suggestion works well for round-table discussions but does tend to lead to topic drift, and is easier to exploit to avoid addressing (count)points. A more formal setup prevents this from occurring.

Okay. You´ve won ...this time...

 

[Roger_Harris]

I suggest adding "cross-examination" posts between each "constructive" (argument presentation) post and the rebuttal. No argument or rebuttal would be allowed by the questioner -- just requests for clarification (which helps to avoid accusations of misunderstanding an argument, but which of course could be also used to set up a line of rebuttal) -- and no questions unrelated to the argument actually presented would be allowed. (In this online format, the questions and responses could be a single post each.)

 

[gumboot]

I must be missing something here...

In the formal debates we did at high school, the moot was given in an affirmative, and the affirmative side always spoke first, followed by the negative. The negative side don't have to present an alternative, they just have to demonstrate the moot is incorrect.

So in this instance, which of these is the moot?

"The Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to use of explosives and incindaries"

or "The Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage and fires"

If the first is the moot, Troofy goes first. If the second is the moot, someone from the JREFer camp goes first.

Personally I would suggest the first one as the moot as Troofy is the one making the basic statement - with the second moot it is very difficult to produce a concise and yet fair moot (for example, "structural damage and fires" could be produced by explosions and incindaries!)

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I must be missing something here...

In the formal debates we did at high school, the moot was given in an affirmative, and the affirmative side always spoke first, followed by the negative. The negative side don't have to present an alternative, they just have to demonstrate the moot is incorrect.

So in this instance, which of these is the moot?

"The Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to use of explosives and incindaries"

or "The Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage and fires"

If the first is the moot, Troofy goes first. If the second is the moot, someone from the JREFer camp goes first.

Personally I would suggest the first one as the moot as Troofy is the one making the basic statement - with the second moot it is very difficult to produce a concise and yet fair moot (for example, "structural damage and fires" could be produced by explosions and incindaries!)

-Gumboot

I actually have no prefence as to which side is the status quo and which is not; I just want them to put forth their stuff in an unambiguous manner that restricts their usual tactics and can be agreed upon by both parties.

 

[Scientologist]

I agree with the commentor who pointed out that logical fallacies could be injected to generate more air time. I find the exclusion of pictures to be a biased tactic. It's excluding relevant evidence. Yes, we can link to a picture, but that's sort of like reading somebody's deposition rather than having the witness actually appear. It's not as effective.

Still, if there is actually a courageous person out there who will advocate the positive case, I will take the other side. The resulting document can still republished with pictures and videos on other sites. As long as we have an agreement that the resulting document is public domain, I'm in.

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by a combination of impact damage and fire.

Ok, let's do this. I am a former Texas state champion and National semi-finalist in both CX and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I will accept your challenge EAGERLY.

However, I have one stipulation: You must post first advocating your theory on how WTC 1, 2, and 7 went down. The accepted (and when I say accepted I mean by EVERYONE who has experience in such fields) theory is the status quo, therefore, you must give us your anti-status quo theory as an affirmative to the debate.

So instead of your proposed resolution, I will offer mine. If you choose not to take it, then so be it.

Resolved : World Trade Center 1,2, and 7 were brought down using explosives in a military psychological operation to advance the United States' global influence.

Period. Short, simple, and to the point. Do you stand by this resolution or not?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ok, let's do this. I am a former Texas state champion and National semi-finalist in both CX and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I will accept your challenge EAGERLY.

However, I have one stipulation: You must post first advocating your theory on how WTC 1, 2, and 7 went down. The accepted (and when I say accepted I mean by EVERYONE who has experience in such fields) theory is the status quo, therefore, you must give us your anti-status quo theory as an affirmative to the debate.

So instead of your proposed resolution, I will offer mine. If you choose not to take it, then so be it.

Resolved : World Trade Center 1,2, and 7 were brought down using explosives in a military psychological operation to advance the United States' global influence.

Period. Short, simple, and to the point. Do you stand by this resolution or not?

TS won't do it. In every instance he has demanded that the EBC be the affirmative.

 

[Scientologist]

TS won't do it. In every instance he has demanded that the EBC be the affirmative.

That's because he has never debated anyone who actually knows how to debate... if he's ever debated at all.

The burden of proof is on the woos.

 

[gumboot]

That's because he has never debated anyone who actually knows how to debate... if he's ever debated at all.

The burden of proof is on the woos.

It's actually much easier to be the negative... all you have to do is prove the proposition false.

-Gumboot

 

[qarnos]

Okay. You´ve won ...this time... [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif[/qimg]

<arnie>
He'll be back.
</arnie>

(and with that avatar, I bloody well hope so!)

 

[Scientologist]

It's actually much easier to be the negative... all you have to do is prove the proposition false.

-Gumboot

Depends on the resolution.

 

[Alt+F4]

It does, however, point out Shmendrick1234's abiding belief that photographs give more information than they actually do.

I see it a bit differently. The CTs think that just LOOKING at a photograph makes them an expert in structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, physics, demolitions, fire fighting and psychology.