NationStates Jolt Archive


Philomathean Society: Formal Announcement

Largent
11-11-2007, 06:15
Charter of the Philomathean Society

Article 1: Statement of Purpose

It is the opinion of this organization that the practice of civilized discourse has become out dated in favor of rash, poorly examined decision making. It is our stated purpose to create a forum in which such discourse may take place and the current issues facing nations may be examined and each side of issue debated. While this organization does not have the stated purpose of affecting political changes directly, it is the hope of this organization to influence choices, especially those involving issues of morals, for the better by taking the stance of the victorious side on every resolution submitted for debate.

The Philomathean Society will not be affiliated with any one nation but rather will be representative of all governments which participate in it.

Article 2: Admission and Structure

Section I: Admissions to the Society

Admission is currently and will always be open to any and all nations. No amendment to this charter may ever change that. While admittance to Philomathean will always be open to all, expulsion from the society will be at the discression of the Board of Trustees who will be appointed by a Board of Overseers which will be a body elected by the General Assembly, with the exeption of one permanent Largentian delegate whose presence will be to help maintain the intended purpose of the organization.

Removal of any member of either board will be put to a vote requiring a 2/3 majority. If at a later time a revote is requested there must be 50% approval or the general assembly may override the decision with a 3/4 majority.

Section II: Structure

Paragraph 1: The general assembly will consist of one representative from each member nation. The general assembly will vote on proposed resolutions and representatives will propose resolutions. Representatives in the general assembly will make up part of any team engaging in a debate. All debates take place before the general assembly.

Paragraph 2: The Board of Trustees and Overseers will be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the organization and removing any members who are unable to engage in discourse in a civilized manner. The board of trustees will also be responsible for all capital campaigns for the continued financial stability of the organization and the creating of an endowment for any representatives at any level whose salary is not supplied by their respective governments who hope to sever all connections between national policies and opinions of debaters.

Article 3: Proposals and Debating

Section I: Submitting Proposals

Any member of the General Assembly may submit a proposal which will then be examined by the other members individually to determine whether it is A) Debatable and B) NOT A TRUISM. If it is than the assembly will be divided into two halfs: Affirmitive and Negative. All members who do not approve of the resolution will be exluded from debate. All resolutions must be submitted in the form of: BE IT RESOLVED THAT...

Section 2: Debating

The member sumitting the proposal will decide the style of debate (ie: Lincoln-Douglass, Parliamentary, Oregon Cross-Examination, Standard Prepared.) Any style of debate that requires preparation will leave for three months of preparation after the submission of a resolution.

After the General Assembly has been divided, one team from each member nation will be assembled and then several debates, each one team versus one team, will take place. The matches will be decided at random and in the even of an uneven split those who are left over after the random matching of teams will be either given the option of changing sides or abstaining from debate.

Judges (although titles will vary depending on the style of debate) will be members of either the board of overseers or trustees although the nationalities of all parties involved will remain unknown each side as well as the judge to ensure neutrality.

Section 3: Deciding the Victor

The outcome of every debate will be decided on A) quality and clarity of constructive speeches and/or information provided and B) quality, clarity, and effectiveness of rebuttals.

The outcome of each debate will be tallied as either a victory for the affirmitive or negative and the overall winner will become the official stance of the Philomathean Society on the resolution.

Examples of Debate Styles:

Parliamentary:

An unprepared style of debate, this consists of two sides: Government and Opposition. These debates require NO specialized knowledge of the subject or the presentation of any data to support an argument. The Government side consists of a Prime Minister and a Minister of the Crown. The Opposition is composed of a Leader and Member of the opposition. The speaking order is:

Prime Minister: 7 minutes
Leader of the Opposition: 8 minutes
Minister of the Crown: 8 minutes
Member of the Opposition: 8 minutes
Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal: 4 minutes
Prime Minister Rebuttal: 5 minutes (no new lines of argument may be raised)

The Judge is adressed as Mr. Speaker or Madam Speaker. Heckling is allowed but are inteded to be short quips and not insults. Raising points of personal priviledge (ie: if you are misquoted or a new line of argument is brought up in the prime ministers rebuttal) is allowed

Sample Resolution: Be it resolved that the fast food restaurants should be outlawed.


Oregon Cross-Examination:

The two sides are affirmitive and negative. The judge is to be adressed as Mr. Judge. No points of personal priviledge may be raised when you are not giving a speech. It is the affirmitives job to outline a new plan and show how to impliment it and prove that the status quo must be changed. A tie goes to the negative seeing as there has been no proof that the status quo must be changed. The negative side may present a counter plan. Yes or No answers may not be demanded during a cross-examination. This is a prepared style of debate in which facts and data must be presented as support to arguments.


First Affirmative – 7 minutes
Second Neg cross ex: 3 minutes
First Neg: 7 minutes
First Affirmative cross ex: 3 minutes
Second affirmative: 7
First neg cross ex: 3
Second neg: 7
Second affirmative cross ex: 3

First neg rebuttal: 4 (Summarize your side, Analyze the debate as a whole; demonstrate the superiority of his side, defend your plan from attacks, press attacks on opponents)
First Affirmative rebuttal: 4
Second neg rebuttal: 4
Second affirmative rebuttal: 4

Sample Resolution: Be it resolved that the Electoral College should be abolished.

Lincoln-Douglass:

Known by some previous debaters as value debate because it is about morals and human rights and for slang sometimes called Lincoln-Douglas, LD debate, or simply, LD, is a style of one-on-one debate that is parliamentary in the types of resolutions presented but is a prepared debate in which supporting facts must be given.

Affirm. Constructive: 6 min
Neg Cross-X: 3 min
Neg Constructive/first rebuttal: 7 min
Aff. Cross-X: 3 min
first Aff. Rebuttal: 4 min
Second Neg Rebuttal: 6 min
Second Aff. Rebuttal: 3 min

Sample Resolution: Be it resolved that in the United States, the practice of plea bargaining for testimony is unjust.

OOC: Still looking for input on the idea. Let me know what you think even if you're not interested. Also, times on speaches are for IRL, they can be ignored for RP purposes and just be used as a general guideline.
The Gupta Dynasty
11-11-2007, 17:59
[OOC: Very interesting (especially considering that I just came back from a tournament [I do LD])! I would expand more, to include Policy and Public Forum (the other types of debate I know), but this is quite interesting.

Basically, placeholder until I have time to post something more substantial.]
Largent
11-11-2007, 18:46
[OOC: Very interesting (especially considering that I just came back from a tournament [I do LD])! I would expand more, to include Policy and Public Forum (the other types of debate I know), but this is quite interesting.

Basically, placeholder until I have time to post something more substantial.]

Well, technically any the organization would be open to any style of debate. Whoever submits the resolution would decide upon the type of debate (based on which is most appropriate given the resolution).
Largent
17-11-2007, 21:42
up ye go