|
|
|
|
#1
03-12-2007, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Formats
I think it would be beneficial to have an actual structured
format for the debates. It's well-known that British politicians are far better debators than American politicians - and they get routine practice in Parliament, where they must attempt to logically convince their Peers of the rightness of their positions. (Just for kicks, compare Blair's public speaking to Bush's.) I've never participated in structured debate, so maybe someone who has been on Debate Team could help us out with this. My guess for a decent format could be something like this: Pro side: sets forth the case for his position Con side: sets forth the case for his position (no rebuttals yet) Pro: opportunity to rebut points made by Con in Initial Presentation Con: opportunity to rebut points made by Pro in Initial Presentation Pro: opportunity to rebut Con's rebuttals Con: opportunity to rebut Pro's rebuttals Pro: Summation Con: Summation Then, points are assigned by the judges (or by forum members, lol) for each convincing point made, if not reasonably rebutted. Points must be non-duplicate and germane. Some care must be taken in scoring so that lots of little similar points all aimed in the same direction are not each counted separately. Very key points, might count more(?). Here again, someone with structured debate experience might be able to help out in figuring out a good format and scoring system. I think this would be educational for most forum members, myself included; and would also help in clearing away some of the clutter and confusion that typically gathers around political discussion and argument (or around what passes for "debate" here in America). Thanks for reading. edited: it would also be useful to restrict the number of words or lines allowed per section. That would ensure that the more voluminous poster does not have an advantage in the debates, as well as forcing each debator to be succint and well-organized. It would also make it easier on the readers. 
|
|
#3
03-12-2007, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Debate Formats
Thank you for the thoughts. We have discussed doing something like that in the future. Since the thread is here anyone else with comments about how the debates shoudl be formatted feel free to post here.
|
|
#4
03-12-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Debate Formats
Free debate >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> ; Structured debate.
Structured debates will highly lower the quality of the debates. Btw I was part of a debate team so I know what Im talking about. I would be amused if someone that has actually prepared and taken part of a structured debate said that its more productive to have a structured debate. The only advantage of a structured debate is that they take less time. However I dont have a problem with limiting words and replies but please, please dont tell debaters what they have to do on a certain post. edit: please let my debate be free.
|
|
#7
03-12-2007, 03:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Debate Formats
Reading someone's "freedom" can be like watching a play called Romeo and Himself. It doesn't have wide appeal. There's a reason why sports have rules. For the action to keep eyeballs, it has to be comprehensible.
|
|
#8
03-12-2007, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Debate Formats
The point-counterpoint form should be emphasized. A specific reply to a specific question, then ask one in return. Many times a debater who's been caught flat will try an elaborate misdirection to disguise the situation. This results in a sloppy thread.
|
|
#10
03-12-2007, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Debate Formats
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Mickey that having separate comment threads is unwieldy. We might decide to have a master comment thread and strictly limit the HU debates to one or two at a time. [/ QUOTE ] That sounds even worse. I mean, if the no-hijack "rule" (which apparently isn't actually a rule, I think) is intended to keep threads focused, why would there be any effort to *puprosefully* have multiple topics forced into a single thread???
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
