True Debate Rules *UPDATED* - Page 3

cherokee · 04-25-06, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I sucks that we can't cus. There is no better way to indicate emphasis and passion of cause than foul language.

Ok first it kills me to say this...............God the pain is too great............................

But he does have a point. A few cuss words always adds a bit of spice to the debate..

Damn I almost passed out from the chest pain.

Billo_Really · 04-25-06, 05:12 AM

For those who aspire to climb the mountain to become the top barrister, a few debating tips...

Quote:

How to Argue Effectively

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

-=- Make things up.

Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you are not going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."

NOTE: Always make up exact figures.

If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."

-=- Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.

Memorize this list:

Let me put it this way

In terms of

Vis-a-vis

Per se

As it were

Qua

So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."

Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."

You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers

vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."

Only a fool would challenge that statement.

-=- Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.

You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:

You're begging the question.

You're being defensive.

Don't compare apples to oranges.

What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.

Don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.
[or one of our own's favorite, "Your being OBTUSE!"]

Here's how to use your comebacks:

You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...

Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.

You say: You're begging the question.

You say: Liberians, like most Asians...

Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.

You say: You're being defensive.

-=- Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly.

Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

http://www.ahajokes.com/law060.html

One more thing, if you are questioned by a monitor, you didn't hear this from me. You got it from Cherokee. Which subsequently, gave him chest pains.

Let the games begin!

tecoyah · 04-25-06, 07:01 AM

An Example of what to expect Sunday Night:

True Debate #4,872 December

Participants:

D!ckweed vs. Pu$$YWillow

Debate Monitor:

PercyPantsonHead

Topic: The use of Silly Puddy as a birth control device

D!ckweed wins cointoss...has first post/and argues the Pro side

Special Regulations: No Photos of Silly Puddy in use allowed

galenrox · 04-25-06, 01:35 PM

Another question:
Why not post the links to sources?

I mean, the credibility of the sources could be a major issue, and what one may deem the relevant section another could find as a few lines taken out of context.

tecoyah · 04-25-06, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

Another question:
Why not post the links to sources?

I mean, the credibility of the sources could be a major issue, and what one may deem the relevant section another could find as a few lines taken out of context.

From the Rules:

*links to sites, and printed material are to be used as seldom as possible, if at all. The important thing is that you quote the relevant portion, and then use the link to prove you're not just making it up.
Op Ed articles are not allowed.

Links should be used, but only as a reference to quoted material.

galenrox · 04-25-06, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

From the Rules:

*links to sites, and printed material are to be used as seldom as possible, if at all. The important thing is that you quote the relevant portion, and then use the link to prove you're not just making it up.
Op Ed articles are not allowed.

Links should be used, but only as a reference to quoted material.

alright, my bad

Trajan Octavian Titus · 04-26-06, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

*Rules Thread Updated*

Topics posted in threads Sunday Night

Threads Open Monday!!!

Will the debate moderator be asking questions or is just going to be a free for all? If so are we limited to one response and one rebuttle? What about asking the opponent questions?

May I suggest a more structured debate than we are accustomed to ie we could make the question answer structure similar to the Kerry/Bush debate:

Quote:

The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else.

For each question there can only be a two-minute response, a 90- second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.

A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed.

Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.

IE, the moderator asks a question alternating between the two opponents, and after each response we get only one chance to respond to the opponents statement and then we move onto the next topic if there's no structure then it's just going to be a free for all; furthermore I suggest that we not be allowed to break down the persons statements into separate points ie no block quoting, you must respond to the full quote with one response as if it were an actual vocal rather than text debate.

Enola/Alone · 04-26-06, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Debate Monitors:

Chosen from the Candidate List, These are the primary fact check, and attitude enforcement in each debate. Though they do not have the power to remove posts, they DO have a direct line to Forum Moderators, and the responsibility to maintain fair and balanced source material within the debate. These folks have the hard job....and will be rewarded for the effort with this:
Attached Thumbnails

So if we see a supect/biased source or profanity, we PM one of the Mods and they talk to the debaters about it? Can I ask which one of you guys we're meant to PM?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 04-26-06, 03:59 PM

Another thought the contestants and the debate moderator can agree to their own rules if they both agree then those are the rules to be implemented.

tecoyah · 04-27-06, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Will the debate moderator be asking questions or is just going to be a free for all? If so are we limited to one response and one rebuttle? What about asking the opponent questions?

One topic question to start the debate

May I suggest a more structured debate than we are accustomed to ie we could make the question answer structure similar to the Kerry/Bush debate:

IE, the moderator asks a question alternating between the two opponents, and after each response we get only one chance to respond to the opponents statement and then we move onto the next topic if there's no structure then it's just going to be a free for all; furthermore I suggest that we not be allowed to break down the persons statements into separate points ie no block quoting, you must respond to the full quote with one response as if it were an actual vocal rather than text debate.

I had seriously considered this style of debate, but did not wish to place the burden on Moderators for the site, and didnt think the time and effort involved in this form would be acceptable to whoever took on the Mod role. It IS a far better form of debate, and I would love to see it implimented, but it comes down to participation, as I do not have the skills or time to do it all myself.

This is something to consider for the April Rounds, I would recommend you start a thread to get discussion going on it now, and see if there is a way to implement it.