Devil's Advocate Contest: GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR OPPONENT

[GoldShadow]

I know this is long overdue, but it's time to get the ball rolling with some DH fundutainment. This thread (and post) will hold all the information about the Devil's Advocate contest. If you want to participate in the contest, just say so in this thread.

For anybody who's not familiar, Devil's advocate is when you defend a position you may not agree with. It's great for learning a little about the opposing argument, looking for flaws in a position you'd normally support, etc (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate). This contest will be a great way to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of your (and others') stances, get some solid debating practice in a competitive environment, and be the best **** debater you can be.

I'm also including this post I recently made with some updated information so I don't have to re-type it all:

You'll notice that some of the topics have a US-slant (issues that the US may currently be dealing with), and one of them (the video game one) has an Aussie origin, but they're broad enough that anybody can debate them. In addition, some of the topics are more controversial or divisive than others. Either way, let me know where you stand on each issue (via post, PM, or VM). Also let me know if you have a strong preference to argue a specific issue, or if there's a specific person you'd like to argue against. Ideally, each person would be arguing against their normal position, but we'll see how we can fit everything together. If you have another idea for a topic, or if you and somebody else want to do a specific topic together, feel free to suggest it.

Taking a pointer from RDK's old devil's advocate thread, there won't be any formal format that debates have to follow. It'll just be the regular quote-reply format, where you quote parts of the other person's argument and reply. Alternatively, you can just address the argument or parts of the argument as a whole instead of quoting specific parts. Either way, you won't be required to do formal rebuttals, cross examinations, conclusions, etc. as that could make things too complicated.

Judging will be by panel, where each judge will offer their views on each debate. This will prevent bias across debates.


Judges
GoldShadow
Sucumbio
D'oH

Potential Topics
Healthcare as a right
The Arizona immigration law (justifiable or not?)
Obesity: should the government should do something about it?
Violent video games: should they be censored or banned?
Standardized testing in schools: is it necessary?
Ground zero mosque
Legalization of marijuana
Judge Walker's repeal of Proposition 8
(A topic of you and your partner's choosing)


Update! Matchups:

Marijuana legalization:
1) Werekill (argue against)
2) BOB SAGET! (argue for)

Does God exist?
3) Dre (argue against)
4) KrazyGlue (argue for)

Arizona immigration law
5) th3kuzinator (argue against)
6) adumbrodeus (argue for)

Healthcare as a right:
7) Aesir (argue against)
8) TheMike (argue for)

Standardized testing:
9) Acrostic (argue against)
10) puu (argue for)

Government doing something about obesity:
11) Bob Jane T-Mart (argue against)
12) Dark Horse (argue for)

Beauty: Is it objective or subjective?
13) Dre. (argue for subjective)
14) Guest❃ (argue for objective)


For those who are ready: Make a topic here in the DH with the title DA Contest: Debater 1 vs Debater 2 (replace Debater 1 and Debater 2 with the names of the two participants).

You'll have 3 weeks from the start of your debate to finish. After that, the thread will be locked for judging. 3 weeks from the start means from the first actual argument/post with an argument, so it's fine to start your thread and not immediately start your argument.

 

[Sieguest]

I say it's about time I stepped out my box, I don't play devil's advocate a lot so this should really tell me where my holes are. Sign me up!

 

[Dre89]

Credit to you Goldshadow for taking action and trying to make this place better.

If we need to specify our interest, then yeah I'd like to sing up/participate.

Just a question about the judging though- is there going to be a set panel that judges every single debate, or are judging panels going to be selected to cater for every individual debate? The reason why I ask is because a permanent panel for every debate may consist of judges who aren't particularly knowledgeable on particular topics, and the panel may all hold the same view on a particular topic, making the judging bias.

Perhaps you could elect a larger number of people who you consider credible enough to be judges, then from that crop select the people who would be knowledgeable on topic X, or who wouldn't all share the same opinion on topic X.

Just my two cents.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Perhaps you could elect a larger number of people who you consider credible enough to be judges, then from that crop select the people who would be knowledgeable on topic X, or who wouldn't all share the same opinion on topic X.

Just my two cents.

Excellent idea in theory, though I'm not sure we'll get enough judges to be able to do that to a full extent. Still, we could certainly do a little switching around. Like if we have 5 judges, two could be selected for each topic based on their knowledge/skill in the area as well as their stances on the issue. So some judges would do multiple topics, but we'd have the fairest judging panels possible in each topic.


Anyway, yes, I'd love to sign up for this.

 

[TheMike]

I want to participate and try to improve my debate skills.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm a little nervous about this, though but I'll jump in. It could be good fun.

 

[Sucumbio]

sweet, GS great to see this up.

About judging panels: In particular debate judging is less about what you know and more about how well put/convincing the argument is. For instance, in trials, judges are oftentimes hearing cases regarding subject matter they have little personal background on. What they rely upon in order to make a fair judgment are the arguments presented. A debate judge will do the same. If the topic were say, China's move to tackle iodine deficiency, you're looking at several facets of knowledge that may not actually be common: China's domestic policy, water treatment methods, the effects of iodine deficiency, etc. Rather than expecting to find a Smash Debater who already knows about that stuff, we instead look for a Smash Debater who would best identify the good arguments vs the bad. In point of fact it's normally better to have a judge who is capable of "forgetting" their own personal knowledge in terms of debate topics, so they are in fact judging the merits of the debate itself, and not the merits of the information.

 

[Pierre the Scarecrow]

Bump. I'd like to be a participant.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So that's 6 people, not including Sucumbio or GS because I don't think either have stated whether they're entering. Is there a certain number of entrants we're shooting for?

(Oh, by the way, I will be gone the vast majority of August, with little to no internet access, so I might not be able to participate if that's when the contest will take place. I will only be home August 8-10 and after August 29).

 

[Deleted member]

I'm always up for improving my debating skills, so sign me up.

HOWEVER
I have limited internet access right now. That is, I'm touring in Greece and the hotels don't have this nice thing called free Wi-Fi. I'm back by August 10 though, so if this starts around that date I'll be fine.

 

[TheMike]

I want to participate and try to improve my debate skills.

Ehh, I probably won't be able to participate anymore because school will start next week and I may not have enough time. :S

 

[GoldShadow]

Just as a heads up, I'll have limited internet access from now until Tuesday, so there won't be much headway made in terms of this contest until after then.

TheMike, I can keep your name on the roster for now unless it becomes absolutely clear you won't be able to participate. Your call though.

 

[RDK]

Credit to you Goldshadow for taking action and trying to make this place better.

Ironic considering Devil's Advocate was my idea, and I've attempted to run a Devil's Advocate event to get activity in the Debate Hall on three separate occasions, but whatever.

I'll be the first to volunteer as a judge, unless anybody here is interested in doing a DA debate with me.

 

[Dre89]

I also started a DA debate with Naci trying to get activity started, but I didn't say 'credit to myself for taking initiative'.

Next time RDK I'll remember to give you a little gold star for your immeasurable contributions to our flourishing community here.

 

[Sieguest]

Look, lets not start any hostility in this thread.
All that matters is that we got something going and hopefully it will turn out awesome.

/epicnamechange

 

[Lore]

This sounds like fun; sign me up.

Can we suggest topics?

 

[GoldShadow]

Yeah, suggestions for topics would be great.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'll put myself forth as a judge, but I still need to talk to/decide on who else would be willing and able to judge.

For topics, I was thinking we should avoid common ones that have been re-hashed a thousand times (eg, evolution, global warming, abortion, among others) and go for something fresh. At the same time, there should be a variety of topics that draw from a number of disciplines/fields (although we could do a themed contest too if you guys would prefer that).

I'll try to come up with some topics, but everybody is welcome and encouraged to post their own suggestions.

 

[Aesir]

can I still sign up? =O

 

[Sieguest]

School is starting to creep up on me. I'm not sure whether I'll be able to participate in this once it gets back into the swing of things.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I wanted to play... but I'm V/LA due to computer issues, srry all.

 

[GoldShadow]

Alright, I've updated the OP with a few topics that I came up with. You'll notice that some of the topics have a US-slant (issues that the US may currently be dealing with), and one of them (the video game one) has an Aussie origin, but they're broad enough that anybody can debate them. In addition, some of the topics are more controversial or divisive than others. Either way, let me know where you stand on each issue (via post, PM, or VM). Also let me know if you have a strong preference to argue a specific issue, or if there's a specific person you'd like to argue against. Ideally, each person would be arguing against their normal position, but we'll see how we can fit everything together. If you have another idea for a topic, or if you and somebody else want to do a specific topic together, feel free to suggest it.

Taking a pointer from RDK's old devil's advocate thread, there won't be any formal format that debates have to follow. It'll just be the regular quote-reply format, where you quote parts of the other person's argument and reply. Alternatively, you can just address the argument or parts of the argument as a whole instead of quoting specific parts. Either way, you won't be required to do formal rebuttals, cross examinations, conclusions, etc. as that could make things too complicated.

There's still no set start or end date. That's all up in the air. I'll try to make it so that we can accommodate everybody who wants to participate.

In addition, since he is the PG moderator after all, Sucumbio has been appointed a judge. We could still use an additional judge or two, though.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'll be back home on august 28, but I don't want to hold people up if it's unnecessary.

 

[Aesir]

Gold can I suggest one? How about the mosque in NY city issue? that might be interesting.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Darn, I was going to create a topic about that today.

 

[Deleted member]

Healthcare is a right Agree
The Arizona immigration law is justifiable pro-Immigration
Obesity: the government should do something about it A limited yes
Violent video games should be censored or banned They shouldn't
Standardized testing in schools is necessary Not sure, which tests do and don't count?

I also agree with the building of the mosque near ground zero, if that one will be used.

I'd love to agrue some anti-healthcare as well as against the Mosque (also a current thing here due to Geert Wilders). If there's place in the Videogame one I'd like to join that too, the other 3 aren't really my thing.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I've re-decided.


Give me in support of the Arizona law.

 

[DoH]

I'd like to sign up, either as a judge or a contestant. Judge Walker's repeal of the voter backed prop 8 in California would be a great topic.

Never mind on the mosque. It's a nontroversey

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I wouldn't mind being against the government doing anything on obesity. But, I'm a little busy now, so I may need to sit out for a while.

 

[Dre89]

Just a few questions-

When will this start?

Why did we need to sign up? Can newcomers not participate once the debates begin?

As for judging, I'd like to judge philosophy/religion debates, however I understand I'm somewhat a controversial figure, so you should probably run that by other DHers.

I have shown that I am open-minded though. I've creditted opposing arguments, admitted defeat in a debate, reconsidered my position after a strong argument was presented against it, and I've even argued for atheism before.

So yeah just throwing that out there in case people assume that I must be narrow-minded simply because I hold more supposedly conservative positions.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I was gonna respond to the above, but decided not to for a multitude of reasons.

I actually wouldn't mind judging one of these. I try not to carry slants with these things, but I will point and laugh if anyone tries to debate with pure balderdash (j/k).

Let me know, thanks.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'm interested in participating.

 

[GoldShadow]

Gold can I suggest one? How about the mosque in NY city issue? that might be interesting.

Darn, I was going to create a topic about that today.

This is not a bad idea, I'll add it to the list. DH, you can go ahead and make a topic about it anyway! No reason to stifle Hall activity just because of a contest. At the very least, it'll provide some ideas for contestants.

When will this start?

Why did we need to sign up? Can newcomers not participate once the debates begin?

As for judging, I'd like to judge philosophy/religion debates, however I understand I'm somewhat a controversial figure, so you should probably run that by other DHers.

I'd like for it to start ASAP. Unfortunately, I've been busy lately, but I'll try to get it started as quickly and efficiently as possible. Sign-up is just so that we can keep track of who's participating. I'll leave sign-ups open after the contest has started, so newcomers can participate too.

Regarding judging: I'd rather not have participants also judge. Also, I've taken note of everybody who's offered to judge, and will come up with final selections soon.

 

[Dre89]

In that case, Id rather judge than participate.

If you don't consider me judgeworthy, I'll just participate then lol.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, I'd rather participate than judge, so I'll stick to that.

Another debate could be whether morality is objective or not, though people might be sick of that by now. Marijuana legalization would be an excellent topic. I'm one of the few people who opposes legalization, so I'd be able to play DA in favor of it if necessary. A gun control debate could be interesting as well.

 

[SuperBowser]

I'm happy to help judge if you need people.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hi. I thought I would share format styles for Public Forum Debate (and perhaps Lincoln Douglass Debate a bit later) in order to add some degree of formality to this contest.

-- -- --​

The first debate style is Public Forum Debate (PFD) and is less formalized than Lincoln Douglass Debate. In Public Forum Debate, a resolved statement is given and debaters affirm or negate in groups of two. Each team member takes on a specific role in the debate as outlined below.

-- -- --​

Example of a prompt: NCFL Grand Nationals 2010: Resolved: That the constitutional right of freedom of religion has wrongly evolved into freedom from religion.

The prompt necessitates that speakers take on two opposing sides to the stated resolution: (A) affirm or (B) negate. In a sense, debaters can be clever to a certain extent in how they view and interpret the prompt given to them. Affirmations and negations are never quite black and white, therefore argumentation can vary greatly based on initial interpretation of the prompt.

-- -- --
The following schedule format is used in PFD.

Quick Interpretation: As stated before, PFD is 2 vs. 2 Debating, yet it can also be adapted to 1 vs. 1 debating. First Speakers (chosen by team) would give the opening post presenting arguments for affirmation and then negation of the resolved prompt. To be fair, there should be an implemented character limit on opening posts such as 1000 words so that the arguments are (a) not stressful to write, (b) not stressful to follow for either side + judges, and (c) remain proportionally fair to both sides. (2 posts: 1 each side for initial post framing the debate).

After initial two posts are written, a series of questions can be asked by both sides that the opposition is obligated to provide an answer (occurs between first speakers / initial post writers). This segment will initially consist of two posts with each side listing 5 questions each that the opposition must answer. These questions can be used to: (1) illuminate any confusing points in the initial post, (2) find weakness in the initial points made, (3) argue your contentions as a more viable alternative, and (4) anything else you think will strengthen or weaken the opponents debate. (4 posts: 1 post each side for initial question sheet. Another 1 post each side to answer questions that have been posed). Q & A might also have a character limit if needed.

Secondary speakers who have been waiting this entire time are involved in rebuttal. Rebuttal is difficult as it requires validation of points that were contested in crossfire, invalidation of the opponent's points that were contested in crossfire, and restatement of main points with argumentation of being the better alternative. Like the opening posts, this definitely should have a character limit implemented. (2 posts: 1 each side for rebuttal post framing the crossfire and substantiating initial points).

Cross fire occurs yet again, this time between the secondary speakers mainly concerning the points raised during the rebuttal. At this time, main points and arguments should be cemented before the presentation of the summary, which I feel is adequate conclusion for online debate. (4 posts: 1 post each for secondary question sheet. Another 1 post each side to answer questions that have been posted).

The speakers who presented the initial commentary should now present a conclusive summary explaining their main points, address rebuttals to main points, and weaknesses in the main points of their opponents giving the overall impression that their side has the stronger argument and provides the better alternative in the given situation.

Note: I feel that Grand Crossfire and Final Focus/Last Shot is excessive for online debate as more cooperation can be facilitated between teammates via personal messages during the course of the contest. If taken individually, then I definitely find such measures to be excessive.


An opening post can be constructed and stylized in an unfathomable amount of different ways. Yet individualized posts don't necessarily result in optimal arguments. An ideal opening post should be easy to follow so that your opponent is able to discern your position and the judges are able to form accurate assessments.

-- -- --​

Things To Possibly Consider When Writing the Initial Argument:​

-- -- --​

Lincoln - Douglass Debate promotes a concise format that is easy to follow, yet there is a restriction as LD Debate primarily concerns itself with finding superior"value" systems to assess a goal, rather than directly assess the goal itself. Despite this restriction, LD Debate provides important tips to write a great debate.

An example:
Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.​

1. Define Terms - You should establish common ground by providing an interpretation of the main terms used. This prevents misunderstanding and allows the debate to be conducted in a smooth fashion. It also allows judges to discern how you are approach the resolved issue. If disagreement arises over definitions, then they can be argued, but it should not be the focus of the debate. [Ex:] Define freedom, justice, democracy... ect.

2. Value Premise - This statement should reflect the resolution and should be the condition that fulfills the resolved statement. In the above example, societal welfare would be an example of a value premise as the topic concerns which condition should be considered more socially important.

3. Value Criterion - This statement is how one would achieve the value premise. In the above example, providing relief to impoverished individuals might benefit society and therefore achieves, "societal welfare." Societal welfare would therefore limit economic inequality between the wealthy and the impoverished.

4. Contentions - Points that you make in order to substantiate your approach to this debate (value criterion and value premise). In the above example, the benefits of The New Deal might be considered in order to explain how despite the government being involved in economics and therefore impeding on the freedom of private markets (maximizing economic freedom) they provided relief for the impoverished and jobs for the unemployed leading to social benefit.

-- -- --​

It takes time and consideration to write in LD format. The main points I wanted to get across is the organization and focus that the format conveys leading to facilitated debating and judging between both debaters.

 

[Sucumbio]

Fantastic information, Acrostic, I should like to endorse much of what you've presented. The time limits we'd prolly do without, but it all looks quite spiffy indeed. I'm glad to see such time and precision invested in this contest. Having formatting is fairly essential, and we'd yet to come up with any. Good show!

 

[KrazyGlue]

I don't know... While I appreciate that Acrostic has suggested this, I don't think it really should be all that formal. I would endorse a simple quote-reply format with no real structure to it. I'm sure the format described above is more proper, but I feel it's a bit tedious for an online forum.

Also I thought this was going to be 1 on 1 as opposed to teams, but I could be wrong there.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

KG don't take it too seriously. It's just a suggestion.

I have not determined the best way to go about doing this, though. If you guys have suggestions for a format, rules, and a list of potential topics to be debated, please post them. A panel of judges will also be selected before the contest starts.