NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw a debate competition on another forum and I think it would be really cool to do it here. We could pick topics, and then nominate people for either side of the argument, and maybe have it judged by the mods, or a panel of judges. What does everybody think?



Ask any questions you want, and I'll try to keep it updated here

Questions:
1)Who will judge it?
2)What will scoring criteria be?
3)How long will it be? (hours? days?)
4)Will there be prizes?
5)What do the mods think?

Sounds good, although it would require a lot of effort upon the mods parts to set it up...........

I saw a debate competition on another forum and I think it would be really cool to do it here. We could pick topics, and then nominate people for either side of the argument, and maybe have it judged by the mods, or a panel of judges. What does everybody think?

well it does kinda happen anyway.

The act of eating is somewhat revolting. Discuss. :)

I think you'd do better if you picked a topic, and asked for volunteers to debate a particular side.

I'd be willing to do the leg work. Any mods with some input , message me!

P.S. I'm talking about only two people debating, one for each side, judged on a variety of criteria. Not just a couple people flaming back and forth. God forbid that happen in the sacred cyberhalls of NS! :D

I'd be willing to do the leg work. Any mods with some input , message me!

P.S. I'm talking about only two people debating, one for each side, judged on a variety of criteria. Not just a couple people flaming back and forth. God forbid that happen in the sacred cyberhalls of NS! :D


No..thats no fun for anyone but two people.

I say you have two teams of three.

That way..the action doesnt need to stop if either of the two primary people arent online.

Also, using the volunteer system, when you get to a new topic, IE, a team wins, you get a new volunteer team.
This way even more people get to participate.

No..thats no fun for anyone but two people.

I say you have two teams of three.

That way..the action doesnt need to stop if either of the two primary people arent online.

Also, using the volunteer system, when you get to a new topic, IE, a team wins, you get a new volunteer team.
This way even more people get to participate.

That's actually both feasible and good.

That's actually both feasible and good.


Im also wondering if we could do it by vote to decide the winners, but Im thinking maybe a nuetral judge(s) would be better, to avoid partisanship on delicate or sensitive issues.

It would be cool with the one on one, because we could have 3 or 4 debates at a time going on. Plus we could have winners advance to "semi finals" and "finals" and what not. Then we could have champions battle champions, and then gladiator style fights, WITH LIONS AND CROCODILES, AND SWORDS! YEAH SWORDS! AND THEN.................. Sorry, how about just debates? (closes eyes and calms down)

Im also wondering if we could do it by vote to decide the winners, but Im thinking maybe a nuetral judge(s) would be better, to avoid partisanship on delicate or sensitive issues.
Yeah, the voting would be cool, but the partisanism and favorites playing would get in the way. How about two classes? The General class, scored by voters, and the "elite" class, scored by a panel of judges?

Im also wondering if we could do it by vote to decide the winners, but Im thinking maybe a nuetral judge(s) would be better, to avoid partisanship on delicate or sensitive issues.

That's not easy unless the mods are willing to do it since no one nation is better qualified than another.

Yeah, the voting would be cool, but the partisanism and favorites playing would get in the way. How about two classes? The General class, scored by voters, and the "elite" class, scored by a panel of judges?


The elite sounds snobbish.

I think a mod (or ex-mod) should judge on pre-set rules.

I'm tuckered out, and goin to bed, but I'm REALLY interested in doing this, so any Mods who think this is feasible, drop me a line! Night all! Keep the people down south in your prayers and in your thoughts!

Does anyone apart from me think it would be good to have a proper debating forum? One seperate from General Discussion?

The elite sounds snobbish.

I think a mod (or ex-mod) should judge on pre-set rules.
Could do … I wouldn’t mind volunteering as well if we cant find one of them willing

I'd be willing to do the leg work. Any mods with some input , message me!

P.S. I'm talking about only two people debating, one for each side, judged on a variety of criteria. Not just a couple people flaming back and forth. God forbid that happen in the sacred cyberhalls of NS! :D


I love debating competitions. I've never done one on line. It would be really hard. Using emotion and just presence is so important.
Would be proposing an improntu debate?

I love debating competitions. I've never done one on line. It would be really hard. Using emotion and just presence is so important.
Would be proposing an improntu debate?

That's what makes it so good. I've been told before that I often win arguments simply because my presense is so overbearing. I love the idea of a debate that is only based on quality and style. The challenge will be finding impartial judges.

I 110% support the idea. First debate, is it appropriate to use the term 110%?

Feh, it's all pointless. We all know I'm going to win ;)

At any rate, this will need to be watched closely, as no one will be interested in losing status, and some may react poorly. It should be a foregone conclusion at the outset that you won't think you're wrong or worthy of elimination. Everyone should probably first come to terms with the idea that they'll think their elimination is BS.

Feh, it's all pointless. We all know I'm going to win ;)

At any rate, this will need to be watched closely, as no one will be interested in losing status, and some may react poorly. It should be a foregone conclusion at the outset that you won't think you're wrong or worthy of elimination. Everyone should probably first come to terms with the idea that they'll think their elimination is BS.

Hey, this may be the first time I've agreed with almost everything you've said (save the first paragraph).

I remember there was once a closed debate between Germanica and Our Earth judged by mods. Don't remember how it turned out though.

~bump~

I find it interesting. I've been in (and sucked at) and then judged (less suckishly, I'm told) some debating competitions. If worked out ok, and if competitors don't cry and stamp their feet at losing, then it could be really good.

Ehh, persoanlly not interested. We have enough debate on this forum as is.

(My two cents got stuck in the machine.)

1)Who will judge it?

Not necessarily mods - but people whose opinion will be respected. So, reasonably experienced debaters/residents of the General forum etc. The people have to believe! There would need to be at least 2, and ideally 3, judges for each debate.

2)What will scoring criteria be?

The debating criteria I've worked with have tended to differ. Some put emphasis on quality of speaking - but I like this less. I prefer 'hard' debates, such as the Oxford Union, rather than more speechy ESU type ones. Criteria have included:

- completeness of argument
- completeness of rebuttal
- amount of material covered
- logical coherence
- level of detail
- evidence of knowledge/research (I dislike this, and think it needs careful consideration
- whether or not you 'win' the debate (which is often the least important criterion)

Some compos use a 1-10 (or other number set) system; others grades, and some merely descriptors like 'good'.

3)How long will it be? (hours? days?)

If you could guarantee that the debaters would be on at the same time, it could just run for a few hours (each debate, that is). If not, then it could be days.

4)Will there be prizes?

Well, whether or not there is, the winners can claim themselves as NS General Debate Champions 2005, or whatever. Cookies are also popular. Gruenberger joke books are not.

Feh, it's all pointless. We all know I'm going to win ;)

At any rate, this will need to be watched closely, as no one will be interested in losing status, and some may react poorly. It should be a foregone conclusion at the outset that you won't think you're wrong or worthy of elimination. Everyone should probably first come to terms with the idea that they'll think their elimination is BS.

I was more concerned myself with the question of which person speaks last, since that has a statistically disproportionate influence on who "wins" a debate, as well as any kind of burden of proof. That would need to be hashed out ahead of time.

Does anyone apart from me think it would be good to have a proper debating forum? One seperate from General Discussion?

Only problem is that often threads turn into debates, when the original poster didn't mean them to be, so it'd be hard to decide whether something needed to be moved or if some new system needed be there to re-rail threads.

(My two cents got stuck in the machine.)

1)Who will judge it?

Not necessarily mods - but people whose opinion will be respected. So, reasonably experienced debaters/residents of the General forum etc. The people have to believe! There would need to be at least 2, and ideally 3, judges for each debate.

2)What will scoring criteria be?

The debating criteria I've worked with have tended to differ. Some put emphasis on quality of speaking - but I like this less. I prefer 'hard' debates, such as the Oxford Union, rather than more speechy ESU type ones. Criteria have included:

- completeness of argument
- completeness of rebuttal
- amount of material covered
- logical coherence
- level of detail
- evidence of knowledge/research (I dislike this, and think it needs careful consideration
- whether or not you 'win' the debate (which is often the least important criterion)

Some compos use a 1-10 (or other number set) system; others grades, and some merely descriptors like 'good'.

3)How long will it be? (hours? days?)

If you could guarantee that the debaters would be on at the same time, it could just run for a few hours (each debate, that is). If not, then it could be days.

4)Will there be prizes?

Well, whether or not there is, the winners can claim themselves as NS General Debate Champions 2005, or whatever. Cookies are also popular. Gruenberger joke books are not.

I like the idea of points for style. There is a lot to be said for the person who while debating and making a point, entertains. Winning a debate means nothing if no one is listening.

Ah. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Style is good - very good. That goes without saying. That includes presentation, humour, and everything to do with putting across your points. My point was that some debate competitions are judged along public-speaking criteria - that is, rhetoric at the cost of actual meaning. That isn't something I'd promote. Absolutely I approve of style points - but quality of speaking in BPD is usually to do with 'amount of hot air spouted'.

Ah. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Style is good - very good. That goes without saying. That includes presentation, humour, and everything to do with putting across your points. My point was that some debate competitions are judged along public-speaking criteria - that is, rhetoric at the cost of actual meaning. That isn't something I'd promote. Absolutely I approve of style points - but quality of speaking in BPD is usually to do with 'amount of hot air spouted'.

I agree. I think style should for a little bit of extra points, points that could put you over the top, not something to hang your whole debate on.

Agreed.

There where debate teams that formed after Zep and Steph's fatefull goodbye-when a lot of solid debators left because thier well thought out and researched posts would get dumbass responses. I don't know what became of that.

I think the mods are reluctant to have 'closed' threads in general and while I don't remember their arguement I remember 'buying' it. Which means it would be pretty hard to keep the chattering horde out.

I've always thought, tangetially, that a rhetorically moderated forum would be pretty cool. The moderators would judge the rhetorical content of posts and rate them on that (lack of falicies, clarity, etc.) with no concern over data-that would be the realm of the posters. It would in essence reward those who put together good arguments and disregard poop-throwers. It would also, and this is what I would want it for, be an excellent way to improve and hone rhetorical skills. I guess finding experts of that nature to volunteer thier time like that would be....something...but in my little dream world I think it'd be fantastic. That debate class I took way back in Junior College was...lacking...certainly could use something like that.

Plenty of RPs exist as closed, and have no one butting in. And if the mods didn't like the idea of closed debates - which would be understandable, I guess, there could always:

1. be two threads (one open, one closed) - although that might be considered spam;
2. be debates on an off-site forum.