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

[KrazyGlue]

Right, I know that, I'm just voicing my opinion on what I think the format should be. I'm glad you suggested it though.

 

[GoldShadow]

Just posting to let you guys know I haven't forgotten about this or the suggestions/offers/etc that have been posted in this thread. I haven't had much time lately, but I plan to work on this and get some of the major details sorted out tonight.

Acrostic, I appreciate the effort and input. However, as per this post I made previously in the thread, I think it'll be better if there are no formal rules, just the quote-reply format we're used to for most threads. This is because, while following rules would make the contest more formal, a lot of people here don't have time to come up with arguments tailored to those rules and plan out arguments in that fashion, and I'd like to foster as much activity as possible. I think it'll work out better if we do things the way that most DH threads are structured.

KG: you're correct, debates will be 1v1, not teams.

On the other hand, if we ever choose to hold a more formal contest in the future, maybe we'll employ those rules, perhaps even have teams. Definitely an interesting idea, but this contest will be better off kept simple.



In the meantime, it'd be great if everybody could post if they have a preference of debate topic and which side they'd be on (feel free to suggest a topic too). Some topics that have been suggested (that I haven't edited into the OP yet) include legalization of marijuana and the repeal of Proposition 8 in California. I know some of you have already posted your preference, so this is for everybody who hasn't.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I could argue in favor of the legalization of drugs. I'm one of the few who would actually be playing DA if I did that.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I'd like to sign up, I really need practice debating for the other side.

 

[GoldShadow]

Alright, I've updated the first post with some more topics and participants.

EVERYBODY PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOUR PREFERENCES FOR TOPIC/POSITION, EITHER BY POSTING IT HERE OR VIA PM (if you haven't already)

Ideally, give me your top 2 or 3 choices, and the stance you'd like to take on each one. This way you can all be matched up into pairs to debate the chosen topics.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'll take Obesity: Should the government do something about it? (No) and Healthcare as a right (No). I envisage that there will be some hard debating here.

 

[Deleted member]

I want to argue against the healthcare and pro banning of violent games.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

no to obesity, no to health care, and yes to legalized marijuna

 

[Dre89]

I'm not interested in any if those topics, so I'm out.

I'm happy to judge though.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, I could argue in favor of legalizing drugs as I've said several times, but I'd also be willing to argue that violent video games should be banned, the government shouldn't do anything about obesity, and the ground zero mosque shouldn't be built.

 

[GoldShadow]

D'oH has been selected as a judge. There might be one more judge, not sure yet. Still figuring out if another is needed.

If you don't post your preferences for choice of debate topic, you will be assigned at random!
Again, this only applies to those who haven't posted their preference. The rest of you are fine.

Dre, if none of the topics appeal to you, you can suggest something you'd be interested in!

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

When we decide a position to argue, should we be choosing a side that we personally support or the other way around? Perhaps I am being misled by the title, "Devil's Advocate." I would personally prefer to participate the following topics: (a) Healthcare as a right and (b) Standardized testing in schools.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I believe we're supposed to post what position we will take in the debate (i.e. the opposite of your regular opinion).

 

[GoldShadow]

As an update, anybody who doesn't post a preference by Friday the 8th will be assigned at random.

edit: and yes, what KrazyGlue said is correct. Post the opposite of your normal opinion (in other words, post the position you'll actually be arguing in this contest).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ok, so now they've been assigned at random, right? (Question: what if 2 people get randomly assigned to a topic that they have the same position on?) It seems like a good time to start this, considering the DH is in a bit of an activity slump.

 

[Dre89]

Goldshadow you said I could make up my own topic because I don't like any if the selected ones, so mine is "the individual and the collective". Where basically the debate is whether individuality is a good thing, or how much individuality is good.

I'd like to argue for the collective side, so if anyone is interested in versing me let Goldshadow know.

 

[Deleted member]

I'd love to sign up for this. I don't have any particular topic preference, they all seem pretty interesting to me.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Can I be a judge?

 

[Deleted member]

So when can we expect this to start? I have exams 25th - 29th which mean I wont be here then.

 

[GoldShadow]

Sorry for the delays. Some answers to your questions:

Ok, so now they've been assigned at random, right? (Question: what if 2 people get randomly assigned to a topic that they have the same position on?) It seems like a good time to start this, considering the DH is in a bit of an activity slump.

Not completely random, in that I reshuffled things if any two people ended up with the same position.

Goldshadow you said I could make up my own topic because I don't like any if the selected ones, so mine is "the individual and the collective". Where basically the debate is whether individuality is a good thing, or how much individuality is good.

Done.

I'd love to sign up for this. I don't have any particular topic preference, they all seem pretty interesting to me.

Done as well!

Can I be a judge?

Will consider it, though 3 judges may be enough (especially considering it's an odd number and that'll simplify things).

So when can we expect this to start? I have exams 25th - 29th which mean I wont be here then.

I'm going to make a post tomorrow with matchups, etc. I will also send PMs to all participants regarding their position/opponent, and the contest start date. I'd like to get it started this weekend, since most people will have some time to make their initial posts over the weekend. Ideally, I'd like to have the contest run no longer than 2-3 weeks. Personally, I think 1 week would be too short, since not everybody might have time to post much in just one week. 2 weeks should be enough, but adjustments can be made at that point if necessary.

 

[Dre89]

I'm going to make a post tomorrow with matchups

Dre vs. anyone is 70-30 Dre's favour, no matter what topic you counterpick, even with the 25-reference-limit rule.

 

[Sucumbio]

ha ha ha he's got jokes, people.

can't wait for this to get started

 

[GoldShadow]

I added this to the first post, quoting it here:

Update! Matchups:

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

3) Pierre the Scarecrow (argue against)
4) KrazyGlue (argue for)

Arizona immigration law
5) The Paprika Killer (argue against)
6) adumbrodeus (argue for)

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

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

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

Individual vs Collective
13) Dre. (argue for collective)
14) Guest❃ (argue for individual)

I know some (or maybe all) of these topics are a little vague. I'll add to this post later today to clarify what each one will entail. Regardless, they'll be pretty open-ended/straightforward, so feel free to start preparing your arguments.

A number of people didn't post their preferences and were assigned randomly. I'll send out PMs soon. I probably should have sent out PMs to non-responders to prod them/actively find out their preferences. Lesson learned. I'll do that next time. If you take issue with or strongly object to arguing the position you were assigned (ie, since this is a DA contest, if you were assigned something you really truly strongly support), or if I screwed up your preference, let me know and we'll try to shuffle things around.

Also, ONE MORE PARTICIPANT IS NEEDED, OR BOB JANE T-MART WILL BE LEFT ALL ALONE, AND YOU WOULDN'T BE THAT CRUEL TO HIM, WOULD YOU? Don't worry Bobby J, we'll make sure to find an opponent for you before this starts.

Contest will start soon, probably within the next week, and it will run for 2-3 weeks, give or take. More details to follow shortly.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Haha. Devil's Advocate Contest indeed. Thank you GoldShadow.

 

[Sieguest]

Oh snap. I actually do support the individual over the collective. x.x

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Werekill you going down *****! LOL

 

[Deleted member]

Prepare yourself Acrostic for a barrage of personal attacks and ad hominem arguments!!!

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yay! Thanks GS.

My question is how we're going to operate with two separate marijuana threads. Since it's 1 on 1 I don't think we should be able to see each other's threads, lest it becomes a 2 on 2. We could just operate on honor code, I guess. We can all trust each other, right?

 

[Sucumbio]

and where are we holding this? shall we resurrect the DWYP sub-forum to prevent the DH from getting cluttered?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It looks like I'm the unlucky guy who has to sit there and wait for someone else to come along and argue against him.

 

[Dre89]

GS why don't you verse Bob? You can just get someone else to judge it.

 

[Deleted member]

and where are we holding this? shall we resurrect the DWYP sub-forum to prevent the DH from getting cluttered?

cluttered? there honestly isn't much other debating going on right now.

 

[KrazyGlue]

GS why don't you verse Bob? You can just get someone else to judge it.

Well, it has to actually be someone who would normally have the opposite view than the one they're being assigned to.

I feel bad for Bob though; he signed up 5th out of 14 and now he doesn't have a topic.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well, it has to actually be someone who would normally have the opposite view than the one they're being assigned to.

I feel bad for Bob though; he signed up 5th out of 14 and now he doesn't have a topic.

That's a good point, and I think I'm just very unlucky sometimes. Well, whatever works... for everyone else.

 

[Deleted member]

Ok, so if this is starting between now and 2 weeks in the future I can't join in as I will be way too busy with exams.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok, so if this is starting between now and 2 weeks in the future I can't join in as I will be way too busy with exams.

I don't mind putting this on hold for 2 weeks for similar reasons.

 

[Deleted member]

ok that's cool.

well see you back on the 30th then DH.

 

[GoldShadow]

Oh snap. I actually do support the individual over the collective. x.x

Looks like we'll have to reshuffle something then...

My question is how we're going to operate with two separate marijuana threads. Since it's 1 on 1 I don't think we should be able to see each other's threads, lest it becomes a 2 on 2. We could just operate on honor code, I guess. We can all trust each other, right?

Ideally I didn't want any repeated topics, but some of them were so one-sided in terms of which side people would argue on that I had to double up on the marijuana one. The honor system should be fine (I hope!), although there are also a few other options that I'll look into.

and where are we holding this? shall we resurrect the DWYP sub-forum to prevent the DH from getting cluttered?

That's actually not a bad idea. Since this is a contest, we could call this the resurrection of DWYP, in which case opening up the forum would work perfectly.

It looks like I'm the unlucky guy who has to sit there and wait for someone else to come along and argue against him.

We'll see if anybody currently participating wants to switch.

GS why don't you verse Bob? You can just get someone else to judge it.

I'd be arguing the same position if I were to DA, but even ignoring that, I honestly don't know if I'll have time as of now. We'll see, though. If some of the matchups are reshuffled, and my circumstances are a bit better by the time we decide to start, I could possibly fill in (assuming somebody else hasn't volunteered already).

The good thing is that not everybody has to start at the same time (see: Paprika and adumbrodeus), so once we get the matchups finalized for certain (sometime within the next few days, I hope), whoever is ready can start. I think allowing each debate to go on for 2 weeks should give the participants enough time to make a solid series of posts.


Edit: I'm now sending out PMs to participants who haven't acknowledged their matchup/position in this thread to confirm that they'll be arguing that position. I'll try and work out any position conflicts through this process too (eg, Guest's position).

 

[TheMike]

I'm fine to argue for healthcare as a right.

 

[DoH]

Do you want us to post our judging paradigms?