DEBATE CHAMPIONSHIP II

Synchronicity said:
judges should come up with questions imo, with maybe some input from us prole debaters.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it would create a conflict of interests. The competitors choose the questions, the order and sides determined by random number generation. The judges sole responsibility should be to determine the winner. That way it can ensure as impartial decision as possible.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually for the first debate......there was lots of second guessing and arm chair quarter backing, but since no one else was willing to take the initiative to organize the debate(s), I take the criticisms with a grain of salt.

I made only one significant error organizing the first debate. I appointed Annie as a judge and she singled handedly ruined the first contest meaning 3D (and no reflection on him) pretty much won by default. Still...a win is a win.

As for the topics. I took them all from a conservative debating forum (no kidding)....including the dogs vs cats topic. That particular topic was listed on their site (this was their rational and I agree) because for many, like SF, a sense of humor is an intellectual short coming and that topic was chosen as it was intended to weed out contestants who don't have one. So I can certainly see where SF would loath such a topic. My suggestion to the debate organizer is that you choose at least one whimsical/humorous topic for just such a reason, that some people are intellectually handicapped by lacking a sense of humor. There can be two positive outcomes from such a topic. Since a "sense of humor" is indicative of higher intelligence, someone lacking one would be eliminated (that's a positive) and someone with a sense of humor will give us all a much needed laugh ( and that's also a positive). The purpose of the debate is for the winner to demonstrate well rounded rhetorical skills and not just a narrow one. If you cant' think on your feet when thrown a curve ball.....you don't deserve to win.
Click to expand...

Go back and read that debate dumbass.... either your memory is faulty or you clearly lack reading comprehension skills....
 
Damn Yankee said:
Post 29 you said "you're [sic] debating usually sucks."
Post 30 I replied "That's just your biased opinion because you hate my positions."
Post 31 you then stated "No, I look for good debating styles in all posters, left, right, and centre [sic]. Asshate and Wanderingbare suck at debating, for example..."
And I pwn you in post 37: "Thanks for admitting your personal bias and that you looked for style over substance."

:)
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting these numbers from, as all of the quotes you're referring to are well past the 30's, and generally in the 50's.

As for debating styles, yes, a good style of debate is important for winning. Especially in competitive debate, where being on the "correct side" is irrelevant to winning, such as in Lincoln-Douglas Debates (remember, Lincoln "lost" the debates and Senate election against Douglas, but he was on the correct side, and he ultimately won for the future and posterity, plus he exposed Douglas as an egotistical weasel to the nation). If you cannot logically put together an argument (much like an article, essay, thesis, or disseration), you essentially have not made one.

Coincidentally, Dixie made this same argument last year, claiming that no one on the side of any argument which he deemed "incorrect" could possibly win a debate, because there is nothing to debate about. Style matters in debate, because, unlike the aesthetics of most other aspects of life, in debate and rhetoric, it is an outward sign of logical soundness and of intelligence.
 
Threedee said:
I don't know where you're getting these numbers from, as all of the quotes you're referring to are well past the 30's, and generally in the 50's.

As for debating styles, yes, a good style of debate is important for winning. Especially in competitive debate, where being on the "correct side" is irrelevant to winning, such as in Lincoln-Douglas Debates (remember, Lincoln "lost" the debates and Senate election against Douglas, but he was on the correct side, and he ultimately won for the future and posterity, plus he exposed Douglas as an egotistical weasel to the nation). If you cannot logically put together an argument (much like an article, essay, thesis, or disseration), you essentially have not made one.

Coincidentally, Dixie made this same argument last year, claiming that no one on the side of any argument which he deemed "incorrect" could possibly win a debate, because there is nothing to debate about. Style matters in debate, because, unlike the aesthetics of most other aspects of life, in debate and rhetoric, it is an outward sign of logical soundness and of intelligence.
Click to expand...

The numbers are possibly different because I am viewing the thread with the most recent first.

Again, "Thanks for admitting your personal bias and that you looked for style over substance."
 
Damn Yankee said:
The numbers are possibly different because I am viewing the thread with the most recent first.

Again, "Thanks for admitting your personal bias and that you looked for style over substance."
Click to expand...

This is precisely why you lose debates. In debate, style IS substance. No need for Mott to go back a year and look at the debate which you lost, because there is clearly nothing of substance to re-examine.
 
It is worth noting that I won that round not unanimously, in spite of huge mistakes by my opponent, showing what I've been asserting all along, that the judging was poor. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
It is worth noting that I won that round not unanimously, in spite of huge mistakes by my opponent, showing what I've been asserting all along, that the judging was poor. :)
Click to expand...

No, you also had some mistakes in your first round of debating. Part of the format is asking your opponent a question and them answering it.

Part of your reply was very close to an ad hom, and you never answered the question asked.



So the fact that it was not a unanimous win was for very good reasons, whether you remember them or not.
 
Even if I made a slight error as you described, my opponent massively self-pwned, so any unbiased judge would have scored me for the win. Only an obviously biased one would have scored against me.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Even if I made a slight error as you described, my opponent massively self-pwned, so any unbiased judge would have scored me for the win. Only an obviously biased one would have scored against me.
Click to expand...

The basic format includes asking a question and answering your opponent's question. You didn't answer teh question. That is serious enough to warrant loss of points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top