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

[GoldShadow]

We should probably come up with a standard of some sort, which we can work out via PM, or something.

 

[GoldShadow]

Hm... I haven't received any type of response from Aesir, Pierre, or Werekill. I'll give them another prod or two, otherwise we may have to do some more reshuffling.

 

[Dre89]

Nothing personal D'oh, but why is one of the least active members here appointed as a judge?

I don't mean to be rude, just curious that's all.

 

[Sieguest]

I would think because D'oh could be the most impartial when it comes to judging.

 

[Dre89]

I would think because D'oh could be the most impartial when it comes to judging.

You mean to say that because people are unaware of opinions he holds on certain issues, that makes him more suitable for judging?

I don't have anything against the guy, just thought it was a bit of a curious decision. I assume he's friends with Goldshadow, and that Goldshadow would think he'd make a good judge. Goldshadow is a pretty sensible guy, so I guess I trust his judgement anyway.

By the way Guest, want to do a different topic? Because we're both arguing the sides we agree with, and I'm not particularly interested in taking the "individual side".

Choose a topic you like, chances are I won't have an opinion on it either way, so either side will be DA for me.

 

[Sieguest]

You mean to say that because people are unaware of opinions he holds on certain issues, that makes him more suitable for judging?

Not so much that, even if we're unaware of his opinion that wouldn't mean that he isn't biased. It's more along the lines that since he hasn't had much interaction with most of us that he would be less prone to personal bias than others.

By the way Guest, want to do a different topic? Because we're both arguing the sides we agree with, and I'm not particularly interested in taking the "individual side".

Choose a topic you like, chances are I won't have an opinion on it either way, so either side will be DA for me.

I wouldn't mind doing a different topic. The big thing on my mind right now is education, but I was saving that to make a thread over it. I'll think of something at some point (A bit distracted since I'm dealing with other things in real life at the moment).

 

[GoldShadow]

I picked D'oH because he's got experience judging debates IRL in the past and, based on his post history, seemed like he'd be a suitable judge.

Guest, I'm still waiting on a few participants to acknowledge their positions, which is why I haven't tried moving you around yet. If I don't hear from them in the next day or two, they'll be DQed and that should leave us with a few less people and possibly open positions. If you want, you can wait until then (and I'll try to work out the matchups again) or if you and Dre want, you can agree on another topic.

 

[DoH]

If anyone has questions about my judging credentials, here they are. I debated four years of high school policy debate, competing nationally and in one of the hardest regions. My topics ranged from national to international policy, as well as structural/procedural arguments about debate itself, and critical theory with a focus on post-modern biopolitics. While in high school I attended the Gonzaga debate institute, and now I judge high school and college level debates across the metroplex and have for the past four years. I also have a BA in political science with a focus on international relations and a minor in Asian studies.

I don't post much in the DH because most of them are silly topics that can't be argued with evidence, while I like debating policy or theory that has tangible impacts. However I feel that when I post in a competitive aspect my posts are solid and articulate; you can look to my debate with your power entries for that.

I can post my personal paradigms if you all would like.

 

[Dre89]

You obviously have the credentials, but if you're of the modern view that anything not based in science has no evidence (which you implied in your post) then I don't want you judging my debate.

 

[Sucumbio]

Nice, D'oh. I was a debate coach in the GBA for a few years. My BA is in English, and I used to participate in model UN at M.I.T. With GS's background in hard science we'll make a good trio for sure.

Dre. ... ... haha nevermind. Just debate to the best of your ability, it'll be okay, I promise. Don't sweat over our personal viewpoints. Debate judging is about coherence, being concise, accurate and forthcoming. Regardless of what "evidence" you bring to the table, your ability to be those things should still show.

EDIT: As for judgment standards, we can discuss it publicly or privately, it's up to you two.,Due to the informality of the stage, I'd suggest a points system with 5-7 categories, and either fixed or variable weights.

 

[DoH]

I never said anything about science. I just like it when people support their arguments with something other than arbitrarily concocted standards. There's nothing scientific about Foucault's biopolitics, one of my favorite arguments, but even as a philosophical frame work it has warrants to justify what it posits, rather than vacuous claims.

Edit: I think it would be good for us to post our paradigms, as that would give debaters a chance to structure their arguments in a way that they won't alienate a judge, or if people have manufactured concerns about one of us they can focus their efforts on the other two, strategically speaking.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I used to participate in model UN at M.I.T.

Yeah! MUN! High school (and formerly middle school) MUNer right here. *high five*

By the way, is there any real concrete start day for this?

 

[Sucumbio]

nice :D MUN was so much fun. In one session the US somehow ended up blowing up the world >< And I got assassinated. Twice. *sigh*

Well, I'm almost afraid to get too ... technical. But here's an example:

If the debate is policy debate, then there's several aspects to judging. I would consider myself a Tab judge (Tabula Rasa)... in essence going into the debate with no expectations or prejudice towards which side is better. Counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks are all equally acceptable, and weighed. There is also "speaker points" to be awarded based on how well the presentation is articulated. This would establish a base (1-30 points, 30 being highest) for which to judge all debaters, and to award an overall "best speaker."

The thing I want to avoid is scaring off competition due to formality issues. What I envisioned was a dumbed-down version of a points system which would play more to the Speaker Points aspect, breaking that down into categories and being 1-10 each up to 50 or 70 total points, then averaged to attain an overall score. Though technically as judges we'll be employing our own paradigms I feel as if that aspect could be kept on the down low, as one, a lot of these topics aren't exactly policy debate topics, and two our debaters won't necessarily be ready to formulate arguments geared towards policy debate.

 

[DoH]

As far as judging paradigms go, my personal default is that of a policy maker; who ever presents the best plan to solve the problem wins my vote and I weigh the impacts of both sides in making that assement, however if you engage in a framework debate I'll use that to cast my vote if it's convincing. I'm fairly pragmatic but do enjoy critical discourse as long as it makes sense and has a viable alternative. As far as procedural arguments go I'll only vote if I see active in round abuse, and you present a convincing argument as to why the offending party's actions are bad for debate. As far as impact calculus goes, I generally weigh systemic harms over forecasted harms, but if there's a big enough impact and a conceded risk of that forecasted impact that outweighs the system harms, then I'll probably vote for the forecasted impact. In your final rebuttals I like for both sides to crystallize their arguments into a coherent thought, tell me what arguments they won and why they are important or key to winning the round, and tell me why they should earn my vote.

If anyone has any questions let me know.

 

[Dre89]

If you guys have complex marking criteria, then that's good, but I don't think you need to present them to the debaters, it may just intimidate them, and may deviate them from their focus. The best debater should win regardless of the marking criteria anyway.

You know what I thought would be cool, if we had a knock-out tournament. It'd probably be hard to organise, but seeing how long this thing is taking, it's not as if we've set really close deadlines to get events organised.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

We gonna start anytime soon??

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, judge them however you want, but I believe we're just going to stick to the typical quote-reply debate format. Honestly I think these should be just like regular debate threads except 1 on 1 and with fewer tangent discussions.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, judge them however you want, but I believe we're just going to stick to the typical quote-reply debate format. Honestly I think these should be just like regular debate threads except 1 on 1 and with fewer tangent discussions.

Right. I concur. I just can't see myself making large essays, for every post.

 

[GoldShadow]

We gonna start anytime soon??

Soon. I'm prodding the inactive participants one more time, if still no response I'll try to reshuffle a few matchups today, so that everything works out.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but me and Guest don't really like our topic and want to do a different one, plus we were both arguing sides that we agreed with.

I'm going to PM him to see if we can agree on a new topic.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

If the sides change, I might enter. Not that I'm trying to tempt you or something like that.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, if your opinion is the opposite of Bob's, you could debate against him in the obesity topic, which would be really helpful.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It isn't, unfortunately.

 

[Aesir]

Hey Gold, I'm back sorry about the long wait and wow just looking at the PG I can see a lot of posts I'm so not replying to LOL.

Anyway I'll get started on my thread shortly, I was wondering if maybe I could argue against Bob as well? I wouldn't mind arguing that even though it's not really a devils advocate stance for me. THat is if you can't find anyone else.

Also where should these threads be posted?

Edit: this means I would argue my assigned topic and against Bob. Again only if you can't find anyone else/or if you have no problems with it in general.

 

[Lore]

I apologize for not posting here or in any of the debate hall; I have been very busy irl, etc.

Can we post our threads whenever we're both ready?

 

[Dre89]

Aesir which posts in the PG do you not want to respond to?

I'm assuming you're implying that they're bad?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Hey Gold, I'm back sorry about the long wait and wow just looking at the PG I can see a lot of posts I'm so not replying to LOL.

Anyway I'll get started on my thread shortly, I was wondering if maybe I could argue against Bob as well? I wouldn't mind arguing that even though it's not really a devils advocate stance for me. THat is if you can't find anyone else.

Also where should these threads be posted?

Edit: this means I would argue my assigned topic and against Bob. Again only if you can't find anyone else/or if you have no problems with it in general.

Yeah. I think that would be an alright idea, if I can't go against someone else.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm very sorry adumbrodeus but I'm going to have to drop out as life is turning out way too busy.
I hope this doesn't f*** things over too much.

 

[Aesir]

Aesir which posts in the PG do you not want to respond to?

I'm assuming you're implying that they're bad?

I don't mind arguing with people who I think are crazy, but when they use bad arguments or generally contest "facts" I get upset and chose to ignore people. Taxation is theft, and 9/11 truth movement threads stick out the most in my mind. Also, that one guy who said something like;

"to you defenders of democracy what do you have to say about nazism elected through democracy"

C'mon you can find a better argument then that, when you have to invoke Hitler or nazi's to make your point it's a weak point. Anyone who's taken One government course could rip that apart and put it on it's head and show how stupid it is.

You want better arguments against democracy? How about the tyranny of the masses? how about the ignorance of common people? I can go on. That's why America isn't a Democracy it's a Democratic Republic. To prevent the negatives of Democracy but still holding true to ideas of fairness and what have you.

 

[GoldShadow]

Since Paprika Killer has dropped out, that leaves us with an even number of people and this:

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) OPEN
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) OPEN

Individual vs Collective
13) Dre. (argue for collective)
14) OPEN

Guest❃



Would anybody who's unpaired right now (adumbrodeus, Bob Jane, Dre, Guest) like to do one of the other open topics? Dre and Guest, I know you guys were mismatched, which is why I "unpaired" you for the sake of this list. If you two have come up with an agreeable topic on your own, however, I can leave you guys paired up. If you two do still want to be paired, then that would leave only adumbrodeus and Bob Jane. You (adumbrodeus and Bob Jane) could then select to do one of the topics to which you're currently assigned, or come up with another topic yourselves.

Anyway I'll get started on my thread shortly, I was wondering if maybe I could argue against Bob as well? I wouldn't mind arguing that even though it's not really a devils advocate stance for me. THat is if you can't find anyone else.

Thanks for the offer. If we can't get this sorted out, then we may have to take you up on this. I'd like to leave it as a last resort, but good to know it's an option.


I suppose there's no problem with those who are already paired up getting a start on their threads.

Regarding where the topics should be made: For now, they should be made 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). In the meantime, we'll try to make the DWYP sub-forum visible again and perhaps move the threads that afterward. But for the time being, just making them here will do.

You'll have 3 weeks from the start of your debate to finish. After that, the thread will be locked for judging.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Im against the AIL, I think the government should do something about obesity, and I support the Individual >_>

 

[Dre89]

Guest and I decided on a topic.

We're debating whether beauty is objective or not. I'm taking the subjective side.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

To be honest, I'd rather not change topics, but if necessary, I will. Surely somebody here's got to think that the government shouldn't do something about obesity, and is willing to go DA against me, right?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Poor Bob Jane Maybe someone else from the new batch of DH members will debate you like Cheese, Jaswa, Namaste, Rapture, Dark Horse, or Dragoon Fighter.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That topic is the reason why I joined this contest in the first place...

 

[Aesir]

So who is this "The Mike" guy, I want to get this shindig started.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It seems my pairing is pretty locked in, so I guess I'll contact Pierre and we'll get started.

EDIT: I PMed him, but he hasn't logged on since 10/15, so I'm not sure when I'll get a response.

 

[Lore]

I'll contact Bob Saget! and let him create the thread.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Looks like the other marijuana thread is up! I promise not to look.

Anyways, if Pierre doesn't contact me back within a week or so, I may have to switch topics. Problem is, I agree with adumbbrodeus on the Arizona Immigration law and with Bob Jane on the obesity topic.

 

[GoldShadow]

I know this has been a rough start (and it hasn't started at all for a few participants), but I just want to thank you guys for bearing with me.

To be honest, I'd rather not change topics, but if necessary, I will. Surely somebody here's got to think that the government shouldn't do something about obesity, and is willing to go DA against me, right?

That topic is the reason why I joined this contest in the first place...

Poor Bob Jane Maybe someone else from the new batch of DH members will debate you like Cheese, Jaswa, Namaste, Rapture, Dark Horse, or Dragoon Fighter.

Bob Jane and adumbrodeus, Acrostic has a good idea. I'll see if I can convince some of these other members to join in. You may want to PM/VM them yourselves, too. Same for you KrazyGlue, if Pierre ends up being a no-show.

So who is this "The Mike" guy, I want to get this shindig started.

Go ahead and send him a PM! He responded to me not too long ago, so he should be around.


Also quoting part of the first post here because I made some changes:

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) OPEN
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) OPEN

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.