NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? It could be run by the mods and organized into a Torunament style. And there could be 3 Impartial Judges voting on who wins and gos through to the next round.

is it actually gonna be a structured debate like at school or whatever or will it be people talking about what they wanna talk about and interupting other people and being able to talk longer than 8 minutes. cause ill win either way.

yeh whatever.

A mod organised mass debate? Surely not.

Not trying to be snarky here, but your proposal has two problems. First, the mods have too much to do as it is without having them moderate a debate tournament, and second, where in the world, especially in this forum, would you get impartial judges?

And there could be 3 Impartial Judges voting on who wins and gos through to the next round.

3 Impartial Judges on NationStates? I think it would be easier to find three honest politicians. I like the idea though.

Not trying to be snarky here, but your proposal has two problems. First, the mods have too much to do as it is without having them moderate a debate tournament, and second, where in the world, especially in this forum, would you get impartial judges?

I'm impartial.

I'm impartial.

Saying you're impartial is like saying you're sober. If you have to say it, you're probably not.

Where are we going to find someone in a position of power that isn't biased against anarchism? I can't debate in conditions like what mods would bring. It would be a slaughter. Even though I am an awesome debator, that doesn't mean much if a mod is biased against anarchism and for government.

3 Impartial Judges on NationStates? I think it would be easier to find three honest politicians. I like the idea though.


I'll take my pants off to that!

That'd be cool. Of course, I would, as a matter of pride, have to own you all.

Even though I am an awesome debator...

<snort>

I like this idea Nazi Weaponized Virus

I like this idea Nazi Weaponized Virus

Yeh.

I think a good thing would be a 2 on 2 debating championship.

Yeh.

I think a good thing would be a 2 on 2 debating championship.
im in--do we get to pick our own teams?

im in--do we get to pick our own teams?

Yep

Where are we going to find someone in a position of power that isn't biased against anarchism? I can't debate in conditions like what mods would bring. It would be a slaughter. Even though I am an awesome debator, that doesn't mean much if a mod is biased against anarchism and for government.

Your lamenting merely demonstrates why anarchists resort to holding mass rallies and destroying property instead of intellectual activism to further their cause. When it come to a debate, it doesn't matter if its one person versus 100; if the one person is the better debater then they can outdebate the 100.

I'll surely debate. Ive actually held a couple public debates. (people challenged me to one since i have some interesting viewpoints on issues)

Heres my stance on certain issues (I wrote ALL of the editorials on there)- http://www.vussp.com/blog/

Your lamenting merely demonstrates why anarchists resort to holding mass rallies and destroying property instead of intellectual activism to further their cause. When it come to a debate, it doesn't matter if its one person versus 100; if the one person is the better debater then they can outdebate the 100.Absolutely. I'll take you all on. One hand tied behind me back. ;)

Sounds fun, I'm game.

Your lamenting merely demonstrates why anarchists resort to holding mass rallies and destroying property instead of intellectual activism to further their cause. When it come to a debate, it doesn't matter if its one person versus 100; if the one person is the better debater then they can outdebate the 100.

Not if those 100 are too stubborn to admit they're wrong. (This holds to any debate, not just anarchism.)

Absolutely. I'll take you all on. One hand tied behind me back. ;)

I'll take everyone on with BOTh hands tied behind my back :D

And the winner could have the title of "Master Debater" (okay, bad pun)

*Lady SpellSong, Ruler of Kaelor pushes off of the wall she was leaning against and says softly* I would support the debate, although I'll not join in it. It does sound like a good idea. *gives a slight bow and leans back against the wall to watch everyone else*

*Lady SpellSong, Ruler of Kaelor pushes off of the wall she was leaning against and says softly* I would support the debate, although I'll not join in it. It does sound like a good idea. *gives a slight bow and leans back against the wall to watch everyone else*


HEEEEYYY!!!! Your from Michigan, So am I :D

I think it would be fun if we did it in teams..If we did it that way, I know who my team is already..lol

Zeppistan, Incertonia, Black Forrest ,Berkylvania ,CanuckHeaven and Holy Word!

Go Team! *LOL* ;)

One person may be able to outdebate a hundred, but a hundred people can lynch one person with a big mouth. When put in perspective, I would rather be one of the hundred. :)

I think it would be fun if we did it in teams..If we did it that way, I know who my team is already..lol

Zeppistan, Incertonia, Black Forrest ,Berkylvania ,CanuckHeaven and Holy Word!
Thanks, but you do realise I'm not a particuarly good 'team player'. Too prone to picking arguments with my own side. (I can just imagine Zeppistan patiently explaining to everyone else that no, our team isn't actually arguing for Marxism ;))

Thanks, but you do realise I'm not a particuarly good 'team player'. Too prone to picking arguments with my own side. (I can just imagine Zeppistan patiently explaining to everyone else that no, our team isn't actually arguing for Marxism ;))

Hmm, you make a valid point..lol :P

Thanks, but you do realise I'm not a particuarly good 'team player'. Too prone to picking arguments with my own side. (I can just imagine Zeppistan patiently explaining to everyone else that no, our team isn't actually arguing for Marxism ;))


We're not?

My brothers Harpostan, chicostan, and grouchostan might disagree about our being very fond of marxbrothersism.....


*rereads comment*

Oh! "Marxism". sorry.... my bad.

lol.

Sounds like a good idea but I do not think you could really determine a winner, and whoever lost would be seriously p.o.'d I think.

I think it would be fun if we did it in teams..If we did it that way, I know who my team is already..lol

Zeppistan, Incertonia, Black Forrest ,Berkylvania ,CanuckHeaven and Holy Word!

Go Team! *LOL* ;)
Well I don't need any of you. I can have my own team

*sulks*

I wish I could act as a judge in this, but I probably won't have the time.

I would make the following suggestions:

First, I recommend the Rambling Debate Primer (http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum10/HTML/006444.html) posted by Ambrosia Moderator Captaintripps.

The only things I'd add to that link is that I would resequence the first example in that post as follows:


* The universe has a beginning (premise of first argument)
* All beginnings involve an event (premise of first argument)
* This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference - conclusion of first argument AND premise of second argument)
* Every event has a cause (premise of second argument)
* Therefore the universe has a cause (inference - conclusion of second argument)


Second, I suggest that everyone explicitly label their premises, inferences, and conclusions. That should make it easier to keep any political bias out of the judging.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

Well I don't need any of you. I can have my own team

*sulks*

Awww, I didn't think you liked to debate that much.. you can be on my team Spoffin :)

Ill be on my own team, I dont need no stinkin help!

Don't pick me, I'd just make rude comments most likely.

...I didn't think you liked to debate that much..
I don't know what that means...

I think it would be fun if we did it in teams..If we did it that way, I know who my team is already..lol

Zeppistan, Incertonia, Black Forrest ,Berkylvania ,CanuckHeaven and Holy Word!

Go Team! *LOL* ;)

I'm in! Let's get jackets with logos on them!

I don't know what that means...

I didn't think you got in on the political debates that much.. I fully admit to my error if I'm wrong :)

I didn't think you got in on the political debates that much.. I fully admit to my error if I'm wrong :)
I obviously make a lot of impact then...

I obviously make a lot of impact then...


awww, now you're just making me feel bad.. :(

awww, now you're just making me feel bad.. :(
Lol, well, I'm a bit upset that no-one noticed me as well. Never mind though.

Lol, well, I'm a bit upset that no-one noticed me as well. Never mind though.
Hi, there! I don't think I've seen you around, before. I'm Cogitation. Welcome to NationStates! :p

/me snickers.

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

Lol, well, I'm a bit upset that no-one noticed me as well. Never mind though.

Noticed what?

*giggle*

Just kiddin'

I was particularly enjoying the ongoing debate over whether or not we should debate. Veeery eenterestink .... but stoopid!

:D

Who would get stuck with me? ;)

--is the kid who was always picked last in grade school

This sounds like a good idea. Zervok is on my team. From my personal experience he is a good debator.

bump

I think it would be fun if we did it in teams..If we did it that way, I know who my team is already..lol

Zeppistan, Incertonia, Black Forrest ,Berkylvania ,CanuckHeaven and Holy Word!

Go Team! *LOL* ;)

i'll fight you for Incertonia, and bring Anbar on if he would have us. but then, it's really unfair to allow such teams anyways; after all, there are about a half dozen people on NS who could each, singlehandedly, take on the rest of the drooling masses. so perhaps the judges should forbid those smartie-pants players from combining forces, as a sort of handicap to give the mouth-breathers a chance ;).

Hi, there! I don't think I've seen you around, before. I'm Cogitation. Welcome to NationStates! :p

/me snickers.

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester
lol!

Woah! I think your all forgetting whose idea this is.... Thats right its my idea so I define the rules. And here they are.

- Must have a basic grasp of language.

- Must not bring up any unproven, racially driven ideas such as that of a 'Master Race'.

- Must allow a user to finish a counterargument before posting a follow up. For this reason it will be 1 on 1 rounds - otherwise arguments will become muddled and risk turning into a flame war.

- Judges will decide marks on three categories: Eloquence, Use of Knowledge and Execution of knowledge.

- Fabricated facts will result in lower marks.

- I get a bye to the final.

I am impartial.

Actually, let me rephrase that. I am rather partial to intelligence and sound argument, and since practicing a structured debate MIGHT actually promote something like that on these forums, I would be willing to judge a winner -- purely in the interest of advancing sound argument. I would even provide a written explication of my opinion -- since it's going to cause debate anyway, I may as well tell everyone how the scoring was decided.

Allow me to advance my credentials:

1) I'm pretty much completely new here... so I have nothing personal against (or for) any of you.

2) You want someone unbiased against anarchism? Well, then you should be pleased to know that much of my undergraduate education was spent on the streets in protest -- as a self-proclaimed anarchist. The "other side," meanwhile, will be happy to find that my views attained first ambivalence, then ambiguity, and finally reasoned moderation during my graduate education in political theory. I understand the benefits of market economics (clearly better than even the pro-market folks here), while I also acknowledge the reality of market failures (which, apparently, no one here has ever heard of). In the interests of full disclosure, I consider myself a socialist with a (wistful) anarchist leaning.

3) I respect argument before politics. As a fellow instructor once put it, "Yes, our department is liberal to left. But we don't try to change conservative students into liberals. We do, however, hope to make them better conservatives." By this he (and I) mean simply that we want our opponents to be reasonable people, so that together we can figure out what the real answers are....

4) I would clearly demolish any one of you, so I really don't care which of you wins...

:sniper:

Ok I need 3 people who are willing to be judges, don't bother if your preivous posts are completely unbias as I will run a background check on all who apply. Preferably we need 2 Left leaning judges and 2 right.

4) I would clearly demolish any one of you, so I really don't care which of you wins...


And your speaking to the Leader of the young Liberal Democrats in my Constituency - who has canvassed and given speeches more times than you can say 'I promote myself in less than discrete ways'.

And your speaking to the Leader of the young Liberal Democrats in my Constituency - who has canvassed and given speeches more times than you can say 'I promote myself in less than discrete ways'.


Oh, I thought we were talking about reasoned debate rather than mere rhetorical public speaking. So, did you want me to give points based on how many people you convince, or on the intelligence of those who would be convinced by your argument? For the first, you don't need judges -- just take a poll.

Granted, there is a certain overlap between the two... ability to consider audience, understandability, and so on.

By the way, I don't think you want to get into a pissing contest over who's had the better speaking career...

--E

Oh, I thought we were talking about reasoned debate rather than mere rhetorical public speaking. So, did you want me to give points based on how many people you convince, or on the intelligence of those who would be convinced by your argument? For the first, you don't need judges -- just take a poll.

I prefer to call it spreading a message, as that is what I am doing when I give speeches - spreading the message of my aforementioned party.
As for your comments about rhetoric - I tend to believe this is a tool more commonly used by those of the right wing persuasion - it helps to cover up the facts they have no real long term investment policies concerning Public Services but rather the ability to criticise and concentrate on one off instances within public services.

Many of the speeches have been debates with The Leaders of each of the main young parties attending. And I can safely say I trounced them all.


Granted, there is a certain overlap between the two... ability to consider audience, understandability, and so on.

There is no need to generate an understanding of the audience. If your points are clear and concise and you can point out again, clearly and concisely, the errors of the right when in realtion to what the people want, there is no need.


By the way, I don't think you want to get into a pissing contest over who's had the better speaking career...

Really? Seeing as I am one of those who may speak at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference this year, as well as speaking to numerous public audiences in my constituency, I can safely say that I would have thought it would be me.

Oh and your rather unsubtle references to your education are duly noted - though, may I ask, where did you go to University and what did you achieve at A-Level?

Ok I need 3 people who are willing to be judges, don't bother if your preivous posts are completely unbias as I will run a background check on all who apply. Preferably we need 2 Left leaning judges and 2 right.

Background check? Whosawhatsits?!?

And the debate about debating continues!

Oh ... and I'd love to be one of the left leaning judges ... I am founder of the East Texas League of Progressive Democrats and do a lot of public speaking myself. :)

Background check? Whosawhatsits?!?

I googled background check and came up with this, hope it helps!

http://www.cavebear.com/dwtnda/wathead.jpeg

Woah! I think your all forgetting whose idea this is.... Thats right its my idea so I define the rules. And here they are.

- Must have a basic grasp of language.

- Must not bring up any unproven, racially driven ideas such as that of a 'Master Race'.

- Must allow a user to finish a counterargument before posting a follow up. For this reason it will be 1 on 1 rounds - otherwise arguments will become muddled and risk turning into a flame war.

- Judges will decide marks on three categories: Eloquence, Use of Knowledge and Execution of knowledge.

- Fabricated facts will result in lower marks.

- I get a bye to the final.



Well your already showing your bias here. However.....

...id still be up for it! :D

I googled background check and came up with this, hope it helps!

http://www.cavebear.com/dwtnda/wathead.jpeg

Ah, yes. Now I understand. Please continue with organizing this momentum event.

Hrmm...you're picking teams? Whose team am I on?

Its 1 on 1

Its 1 on 1
Ooooh...someone get Letila to challenge me...

we need judges and no mods have volunteered so I guess I'm going to have to make myself Supreme Overlord.

http://www.ldysinger.com/MONS_423/06_cont_exeg/x-03galaxy.jpg

http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/figure07.jpg

http://cemail2.ce.ntu.edu.tw/photo/spatial/spa17bThe%20Geodesic%20Golfball%20(%20Spaceship%20Earth%20),%20Orlando.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39561000/jpg/_39561589_howard150.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1320000/images/_1321944_pmqs_ken150.jpg

http://www.hri.org/news/europe/bbc/2001/_1320153_pmqs300.jpg

Hi, there! I don't think I've seen you around, before. I'm Cogitation. Welcome to NationStates! :p

/me snickers.

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester
Cogitation rocks.

(he probably won't notice this either)

Oh really, you think? :p

[This post shows signs of tampering by the NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester.]

Woah! I think your all forgetting whose idea this is.... Thats right its my idea so I define the rules. And here they are.

- Must have a basic grasp of language.

- Must not bring up any unproven, racially driven ideas such as that of a 'Master Race'.

- Must allow a user to finish a counterargument before posting a follow up. For this reason it will be 1 on 1 rounds - otherwise arguments will become muddled and risk turning into a flame war.

- Judges will decide marks on three categories: Eloquence, Use of Knowledge and Execution of knowledge.

- Fabricated facts will result in lower marks.

- I get a bye to the final.

I agree, but I think that even Nazis (if there are any) should be allowed to spew their Master Race theories. If the other side doesn't like Master Race theories, they can be shot down. Also, users should paragraph their answers.

Impartial Judges
Everyone who wants to be an Impartial Judge should take the www.politicalcompass.org test. The three who come closest to the centre of the graph should be the Impartial Judges.

I agree, but I think that even Nazis (if there are any) should be allowed to spew their Master Race theories. If the other side doesn't like Master Race theories, they can be shot down. Also, users should paragraph their answers.

Impartial Judges
Everyone who wants to be an Impartial Judge should take the www.political compass.org test. The three who come closest to the centre of the graph should be the Impartial Judges.

Nah you can fake that.

I'll make a sign up thread tomorrow.

Well I tried to explain 'sign up thread' in google but this is all it would give me:

http://www.sff.net/people/christina/cat.jpg

My God that's a big pussy!

Actually i scored quite near the centre myself. Cant remember the exact score, somthing like +3, -2, very close to pope John Paul II. Maybe i should be a mod.... :P

i'd love to be a judge for this.

note the low post count, the fact that i am capable of utilizing complete sentences, and that i know none of you.

i dislike both republicans and democrats. i'm not especially religious, nor am i rabidly nationalistic. all requirements, i would imagine.

also an A student at a liberal arts university, for what it's worth. i figure i should know a good argument by now.

All hail the Supreme Overlord Snagglepuss.

we need judges and no mods have volunteered so I guess I'm going to have to make myself Supreme Overlord.

http://www.ldysinger.com/MONS_423/06_cont_exeg/x-03galaxy.jpg

http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/figure07.jpg

http://cemail2.ce.ntu.edu.tw/photo/spatial/spa17bThe%20Geodesic%20Golfball%20(%20Spaceship%20Earth%20),%20Orlando.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39561000/jpg/_39561589_howard150.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1320000/images/_1321944_pmqs_ken150.jpg

http://www.hri.org/news/europe/bbc/2001/_1320153_pmqs300.jpg

I, for one, welcome our new Nazi Weaponized Virus overlords.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] No need to quote the image tags. [/img]

I wana' be a judge.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/13/monkey.cloning/oregon.beaverton.jpg

...may I ask, where did you go to University and what did you achieve at A-Level?

B.A. Philosophy, B.S. Mathematics -- Moravian College
M.A. Political Science -- Lehigh University
Ph.D. Political Science
-- Major field, political theory.
-- Minors: public law, American politics.
Rutgers University

Since you make a point of it, I got into Princeton... but they just wanted to give me a free education without making me teach, while Rutgers offered a teaching assistantship... and you HAVE to have teaching experience in such a competitive field. That, and the fact that the only theorist worth anything at Princeton is Amy Gutmann, and her thinking really didn't interest me.

Happy now?

B.A. Philosophy, B.S. Mathematics -- Moravian College
M.A. Political Science -- Lehigh University
Ph.D. Political Science
-- Major field, political theory.
-- Minors: public law, American politics.
Rutgers University

Since you make a point of it, I got into Princeton... but they just wanted to give me a free education without making me teach, while Rutgers offered a teaching assistantship... and you HAVE to have teaching experience in such a competitive field. That, and the fact that the only theorist worth anything at Princeton is Amy Gutmann, and her thinking really didn't interest me.

Happy now?

Quick question, nothing confrontational. How hard is it to get into MA/PhD programs if you have a BS in Biology and a BA in Chemistry? Do they look more seriously at undergrand degree types or work you've accomplished since you left undergrad?

Quick question, nothing confrontational. How hard is it to get into MA/PhD programs if you have a BS in Biology and a BA in Chemistry? Do they look more seriously at undergrand degree types or work you've accomplished since you left undergrad?


To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the question. What kind of graduate program are you trying to get into?

Since you mention "undergrad degree types," however, perhaps I can venture a guess... are you challenging the fact that my undergraduate degrees are not in political science?

In the Humanities and SOME social sciences, it is rather common for a student to take graduate work in a field other than what they've done as an undergrad. I would imagine, though I would not know from personal experience, that this might be different for a physical science that demands a degree of preparation in specialized knowledge.

At any rate, I sort of "fell into" political science. After leaving college, I didn't go right to grad school. I actually interned with the International Action Center in New York City (www.iacenter.org) -- very briefly -- before taking an ill-fated position as a customer service rep for a mobile phone company (I hated it). Also waited tables... Anyway, one day I got a call from a professor in political theory at Lehigh, who told me that an assistantship had just opened up for the coming semester... did I want it? Hell, yeah, I wanted it! (Waiting tables sucks ass.)

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the question. What kind of graduate program are you trying to get into?

Since you mention "undergrad degree types," however, perhaps I can venture a guess... are you challenging the fact that my undergraduate degrees are not in political science?

In the Humanities and SOME social sciences, it is rather common for a student to take graduate work in a field other than what they've done as an undergrad. I would imagine, though I would not know from personal experience, that this might be different for a physical science that demands a degree of preparation in specialized knowledge.

At any rate, I sort of "fell into" political science. After leaving college, I didn't go right to grad school. I actually interned with the International Action Center in New York City (www.iacenter.org) -- very briefly -- before taking an ill-fated position as a customer service rep for a mobile phone company (I hated it). Also waited tables... Anyway, one day I got a call from a professor in political theory at Lehigh, who told me that an assistantship had just opened up for the coming semester... did I want it? Hell, yeah, I wanted it! (Waiting tables sucks ass.)

No, no, no, not at all. I'm not challenging anything, just asking your opinion. I have a BS in Biology and a BA in Chemistry and I'm looking at going back for an MA and PhD. One of the fields I'm considering is Political Science. I was just curious as to your opinion about entrance requirements and preparation, given my backgroun in hard science, for a possible MA-PhD track.

Quick question, nothing confrontational. How hard is it to get into MA/PhD programs if you have a BS in Biology and a BA in Chemistry? Do they look more seriously at undergrand degree types or work you've accomplished since you left undergrad?

i can answer that, having just done what you are asking about...i got BAs in Biology, Philosophy, and Psychology, and then applied to grad school.

what i was told all through the interview and review process was that they look intently at undergrad performance but there are several things that get weighted higher. if you have lab or job experience that relates to the field you are applying to then that is much more important to them than if you got a B- in cell bio. everybody applying to grad school made a certain level of performance in undergrad, so what they really look for is the things that make you unusual. what research have you done? papers published? unique experience in other related fields? stuff like that.

if you have been out of school for a while this increases proportionally; if you left school and then took an unrelated job in a field like, say, journalism or something, then they have serious questions about why you are trying to get back into academia. you aren't necessarily out of luck, but you should write your application essays in such a way as to explain this. if you've been working in the industry then they will want to know why you've had a change of heart, if you have, and they will want to make sure you are prepared to re-enter school because many people who try to go back to school don't make it; they are too used to the "real world" and find it hard to get back into homework and exams and so forth.

if you have any specific questions feel free to telegram me. my dad is on the graduate admissions board of a tier-one program, so he could also help me fill in specific information if you like.

i can answer that, having just done what you are asking about...i got BAs in Biology, Philosophy, and Psychology, and then applied to grad school.

what i was told all through the interview and review process was that they look intently at undergrad performance but there are several things that get weighted higher. if you have lab or job experience that relates to the field you are applying to then that is much more important to them than if you got a B- in cell bio. everybody applying to grad school made a certain level of performance in undergrad, so what they really look for is the things that make you unusual. what research have you done? papers published? unique experience in other related fields? stuff like that.

if you have been out of school for a while this increases proportionally; if you left school and then took an unrelated job in a field like, say, journalism or something, then they have serious questions about why you are trying to get back into academia. you aren't necessarily out of luck, but you should write your application essays in such a way as to explain this. if you've been working in the industry then they will want to know why you've had a change of heart, if you have, and they will want to make sure you are prepared to re-enter school because many people who try to go back to school don't make it; they are too used to the "real world" and find it hard to get back into homework and exams and so forth.

if you have any specific questions feel free to telegram me. my dad is on the graduate admissions board of a tier-one program, so he could also help me fill in specific information if you like.

Thanks, Bottle! I'm weighing options right now and any information is helpful. Expect a telegram from me as soon as I formulate my questions. :)

No, no, no, not at all. I'm not challenging anything, just asking your opinion. I have a BS in Biology and a BA in Chemistry and I'm looking at going back for an MA and PhD. One of the fields I'm considering is Political Science. I was just curious as to your opinion about entrance requirements and preparation, given my backgroun in hard science, for a possible MA-PhD track.


Hehe... Sorry for misinterpreting and getting argumentative.

Anyway, political science is a great field. What I would recommend is figuring out what your specific interests are (e.g. theory -- which is kind of like political philosophy, political economy, comparative politics, or the politics of a particular country -- which is usually considered "comparative" if you don't live in that country). Then when you write your essays, it will impress them that you know what you want to do.

Also, political scientists (EXCEPT for the theorists) would LOVE to see a hard-science background... because they pride themselves on their research orientation.

Hope that helps. Feel free to email me.

Hehe... Sorry for misinterpreting and getting argumentative.

Anyway, political science is a great field. What I would recommend is figuring out what your specific interests are (e.g. theory -- which is kind of like political philosophy, political economy, comparative politics, or the politics of a particular country -- which is usually considered "comparative" if you don't live in that country). Then when you write your essays, it will impress them that you know what you want to do.

Also, political scientists (EXCEPT for the theorists) would LOVE to see a hard-science background... because they pride themselves on their research orientation.

Hope that helps. Feel free to email me.

Thanks, AnarchyeL, and I apologize for not making my original question clearer. I will telegram you because I do have questions.

... if a mod is biased against anarchism and for government.

I'm a newbie here. I'm anti-government AND anti-anarchisim. Why would it have to be a mod to be a judge?

By the way, on that political compass thing I scored -1 and -1.5 and I'd call that pretty centrist.

3 Impartial Judges.

Bullshit...there's your problem right there.

Did anyone read the link I provided on the Rambling Debate Primer earelier in this thread?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

...

Cogitation sucks.

(hehe, he probably won't notice this either)

Oh really, you think? :p

[This post shows signs of tampering by the NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester.]
You were saying something? :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

Is this an actual contest? I'd be quite interested in participating in some capacity. I'm not bad at debating, I'm reasonably well spoken and I have some educational background to my credit.

If nothing else I suppose I could hand out flyers or something if the teams are already picked ;)

Cogitation rocks.

(he probably won't notice this either)

Oh really, you think? :p

[This post shows signs of tampering by the NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester.]
You were saying something? :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

Huh?

I will volunteer to judge, should be fun.