CreateDebate


Debate Info

54
19
Yes No
Debate Score:73
Arguments:60
Total Votes:80
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (32)
 
 No (12)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(1722) pic



CD Members: Should we Hold a Debate Tournament?

CD Members: Should we Hold a Debate Tournament?

In the spirit of 'March Madness', rather than a contest of physical prowess, should we host a 'Battle of Wits'? 

That is, we can separate into Teams of 2-3 members and Debate on pre-determined topics hosted by third-party moderators.  The topics themselves can be voted upon from a pool put forth by members, ranging from Affirmative Action, War in the Middle East, Free Will, Euthanasia, Economics, ect. ect. ect.  Or, we can simply use the debate topics put forward previously by IntelligenceSquared or Oxford Union with a link to the initial debate as a reference/starting frame. 

Teams will be asked to choose a side, if a 'draw' occurs, sides will be chosen by the Moderator(s)/Debate Host.  Debate rules will be enforced by the Moderator(s), who has the ability to warn & then disqualify an individual debater or team if necessary.  As for determining a victor, it would be easy to determine we will need to create barriers to cheating.  Then, a separate Thread will be hosted in connection/linking to the original where all voting will occur.  Voting will be made available to all members that were not on either team of that particular debate.

Teams can either be chosen independently or one can enter themselves in a pool where they will be assigned team member(s)

Who's Game?

Yes

Side Score: 54
VS.

No

Side Score: 19
3 points

Absolutely the best idea I've seen on this site, you can include me out, ha, I mean in.

A difficulty may arise in that unless we can all stick to a fairly disciplined timetable continuity of argument may be lost.

But, as problems were made to be overcome I'm sure the contest will succeed with flying colours.

Go to your corner, when the bell goes I want you to come out fighting.

I want a good clean fight, and no hitting below the below the ankles.

Side: Yes
2 points

@Antrim

A difficulty may arise in that unless we can all stick to a fairly disciplined timetable continuity of argument may be lost.

Yes.

I think one way to remedy this is to hold 'rounds' with time intervals, such as within 12-48 hours (to be determined). Then, for instance, we could hold 3-5 round matches with one each team providing 'opening remarks' from each member (within the initial time frame), then team (A) will go first while team (B) 'sits-out' the 'top' of the first round. (A) will be allotted 2 arguments per round within a certain word limit (to be specified/agree upon)--where they will have to collaborate with team members via PM to see who writes the arguments as well as the content. After which, (B) will be given the opportunity to respond as well as make their own points. Time constraints will be controlled/enforced by the Moderator(s). If a team does not input 2 arguments (or even 1) during their allotted time, then this would certainly seem to reflect negatively on their score in the 'voting-booth' post-debate. The Final round will consist of 'closing remarks' as well as possible appeals/persuasion techniques to the third-party voters. That is, while debating, remember one is not simply engaging in conversation with the opposing side, but to the 'audience' i.e. third-party voters.

Additionally, it seems fitting that the Final match of the tournament (may possibly) have additional rounds and/or multiple Topics of discussion

Thoughts?

Side: Yes
Antrim(1287) Clarified
2 points

Problem solved.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Side: Yes
3 points

Sounds like a good idea, though it might be more interesting if people had to support random positions that they don't necessarily hold.

Side: Yes
2 points

@WinstonC

Excellent--glad you are interested in joining

Now, it may very well turn out that, in a particular debate, a team will have to adopt a position contrary to their own beliefs--provided (A) their side was chosen already & the moderators assign them the opposing position (B) they chose to go with the 'other side' of the topic

Side: Yes
2 points

I'll debate you on any topic you like. How about we start with the difference between lying and debating?

Side: Yes
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

The ethical tenability of 'lying' can certainly be a topic for debate. Does that interest you enough to enter the tourney?

Side: Yes
NumberOne(422) Clarified
1 point

The ethical tenability of 'lying' can certainly be a topic for debate

I suggested debating the difference between debating and lying, not the "ethical tenability of lying". Debating and lying are not the same thing, and my assertion is that you are not aware of this. It is indeed evidenced by your misrepresentation of my words.

Side: Yes
2 points

I'm game , sounds good in theory ..........................................

Side: Yes
2 points

Excellent Dermot--you are the exact type of member I am especially hoping would participate (though, all are welcome of course & encouraged to join)

As I see it, we will need at an absolute minimum 8 teams of two in order to get the idea 'off-the-ground'

Side: Yes
2 points

Thanks a lot X , it could be a lot of fun if it gets going

Side: Yes
Amarel(5669) Clarified
2 points

As Dermot said, it sounds good in theory. I think there is a lot of work to do in order to organize it properly. It would be taxing enough to make it function with everyone on board, let alone making it function through the interference of a few well known members. I’m afraid I don’t believe the plane will fly.

That being said, I don’t mind attempting a participation as I appreciate the goal.

Saboteurs aside, there’s going to be an issue with timing of response, given time zones and schedule differences.

Side: Yes
2 points

I'd like to join (although I cant debate about science stuff, but history and philosophy are totally my thing)

Side: Yes
1 point

@cruzaders

Great--welcome aboard .

Side: Yes
2 points

That would be fun....................................................................................................................

Side: Yes
1 point

@NKJV

It would be great to have you join in .

Side: Yes
1 point

Thanks, love.......................................................................................................................

Side: Yes
2 points

I think this could be interesting. Provided the debate is actually a debate on a topic and not an attack on a person in CD.

Side: Yes
1 point

@Mint tea

Excellent --glad you are interested in joining

As for inappropriate debate topics, that would be 'refereed' out (nearly) as quickly as they 'popped up'. Actually, the inherent teamwork involved and the civil competition should bring members on CD closer together (in principle, at least)

Side: Yes
2 points

I think it'd be challenging to be given a topic and have to debate for the side you are usually against. Makes someone see a different perspective, but I really don't know how it would work out, or if people would try really hard to debate it.

Side: Yes

I’m down!

It’s a great idea! Im not sure who I want on my team, but I can review some past debates

Side: Yes
1 point

@Slavedevice

Great--good to have you with us

As for a teammate, a suggested teammate may be the member Fascism. Fascism has not been active here in a bit, though he has been active over on Debateisland.com . Then, if you want, you could go to Debateisland.com, message Fascism about the situation, and see if he would like to pair up for the Tournament.

If you are interested in seeing his views, he has a debate you can enter into the 'search' feature titled "Fascism is Good: Read my Argument"

Best of Luck

Side: Yes
2 points

If I'm not too late to jump in on this, I'd love to participate. Think it's a great idea!

Side: Yes

As long as the topic isn't about abortion, Trump, gun control or any of the other dozens of topics we already argue about every. Single. Fucking. Day.

Something more unique, please.

Side: Yes
1 point

@NicolasCage

Great--it would be good to have you on board.

As for topics, all members will be able to submit perhaps a few topics into the 'pool' which will be voted on. Also, a collection of IntelligenceSquared and/or Oxford Union debates will be in the 'pool', as well

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Isn't amazing that a Progressive does not want to talk about Trump nor gun control which is a 24/7 cycle on the news you consume ! And of course you would not want to talk about abortion because more children have been killed in the womb than by any gun violence. In your world death by doctor is far better than death by gun. Is that because you Progressives prefer legal murder ?

Side: No
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

Do you mean no more topics like non stop witch hunts against Trump? No topics about hating Trump?

No topics about insulting Christians?

I realize the abortion issue shows the total hypocritical intolerant non inclusive mindset of Liberals and the reason you want to censor it.

Sorry, that number one topic of all time will never go away until Democrats come back to humanity.

What more important topic can there be than the purposeful killing of innocent human life.

Yes, it shows your inhumanity. LIVE WITH IT OR GROW A HEART.

Side: No
1 point

Update: As of now [2/21], we require 4 more members (minimum) in order to get this idea 'off-the-ground'

Side: Yes
1 point

@Mathfan

I'll join the tournament as well.

characterscharacters

Side: Yes
1 point

@MichioKaku

Excellent--good to have you on board .

Side: Yes
1 point

Update: As of now [2/23], we require 2-3 more members (minimum) in order to get this idea 'off-the-ground'

Side: Yes
1 point

Update: As of 3/3/2018, we need 2 more members [minimum] to get the Tournament going.

Side: Yes
NomsGremlin(79) Disputed
1 point

I want to go head to head with NumberOne. He has no chance in the underworld of winning.

Side: No
2 points

''Beware The Ides of March''.

Well yes that's a good idea, I just thought I'd use that quote from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

See you on the other side.

Side: No
1 point

@Antrim

Excellent .

Side: No
cruzaders(325) Clarified
2 points

will nomenclature be allowed in these "debates"? .

Side: Yes
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

you like the idea, but post on the "No" side - tsk tsk

Beware the chides of February... ;)

Side: Yes

Isn't this what the site is largely supposed to be?

Side: No
2 points

I think it is our responsibility (as members of CD) to foster change in the positive direction, or else we are stuck with fractured, informal 'bar-room Philosophy' (which largely dominates) as of present.

Side: No
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

To be clear fractured , informal "bar -room Philosophy" largely dominates those on the Left and that is fact. Take a look at "Leftist Media" and tell me that is not true.

Side: Yes
1 point

@JustIgnoreMe

Isn't this what the site is largely supposed to be?

Yes, exactly--and it would be a great pleasure to have you join (if you should wish to).

Side: No
2 points

For one to even try to believe that Progressives can civilly debate is beyond comprehension. Progressives have fed from the Trough of Propaganda for so long now they lack the ability to make 2 plus 2 equal 4. Fracturing society and causing cultural rot is in their playbook written by Saul Alinsky.

Side: No
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@outlaw

Why would it only be 'Progressives' engaging in debate? The idea is to get those of all perspectives to challenge themselves and each other in civil competition

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Show me some civil progressives then you might have something.

There is only 2 cool people i have seen respond that is Antrim and Dermot.

Now the 3 of us could sit down and have civil debate over some cold barley pops and all would be good.

Side: Yes