Caine

The True Debate for Week 3: Legal Marijuana will begin on January 22 2007 and end on January 26 2007.

Binary Digit will be making his case for the decriminalization of Marijuana for personal use.

We do not have a participant for the opposing view at this time.

If you wish to debate why we should keep Marijuana illegal in the United States as a controlled substance, please let myself or Binary Digit know.

The purpose of this thread will be to (find an opponent and) setup the debate format and rules that the participants will be following for the debate.

__________________
This same attitude is going to be the excuse used when Obama loses. Mark my words.

saggyjones

Aww man I just started that thread about decriminalizing marijuana... Oh well good luck Binary Digit I'll be sure to read this debate!

__________________
"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe." -Voltaire

Caine

LOL...... Its funny cause I used your thread to try to recruit someone to argue against him...

I didn't even know it was up until after I had contacted Binary Digit

Caine

Well, Politicomind, welcome to the debate, this thread has been set up for you and Binary Digit to hash out any rules that ya'll wish to debate upon. The debate starts at Midnight EST Monday (tomorrow).

So hopefully, if both of you participate in setting up your own rules to go by for the 5 day debate, then I can start the thread tonight according to those rules.

If neither of you can get together in time, I will set up the debate using a standard set of debate rules.

politicomind

Here is my set up:

1 introduction post stating your position, thesis, and what you will attempt to prove
4 body argrument which can be a counter argument or presentation of new information
1 conclusion closing argument

In the closing argument no new information can be presented. The role of the closing argument is to convincingly summarize your own position while mildly refuting the opposition's position

There should be no minimum length. I am not concerned if you are too succinct. The only undesirable outcome is filabustering, in which one side just keeps going and going. Therefore, the max should be 2000 words. There should be alternating post requirements, meaning one should post only after the other has made a turn and the 4 body arguments cannot be exceeded. If any one player takes more than three days to respond the issue is automatically forfeited by the non-communicating poster.

I elect that we have three judges to judge our debates on a point system as follows with the greatest amount points added up winning.

(0-10) ten being the highest.
Relevancy
Style
Counter Arguing
Persuasiveness

I also propose that after this debate, we, the same two individuals do a reverse debate on the same subject.

Binary_Digit

I'm confused about where the debate exchange will be in that format. Do we each provide an introduction, 4 body argument, and a conclusion? Or do I post an introduction, we counter each other 4 times, then we each post a closing argument? I had imagined something like this:

1. I give an opening argument
2. You counter
3. I counter
4. You counter
5. I counter
6. You give a closing argument

This may be roughly equivelant to what you suggested, I guess I just need more clarification. The other things you suggested seem like good ideas. I may even be able to do a reverse debate with ya!

__________________
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower

politicomind

more like this ...

1 Your Opening
2 My Opening

3 Your 1st body argument and counter
4 My 1st body argument and counter

5 Your 2nd body argument and counter
6 My 2nd body argument and counter

7 Your 3rd body argument and counter
8 My 3rd body argument and counter

9 Your 4th body argument and counter
10 My 4th body argument and counter

11 Your closing statement
12 My closing statement

Binary_Digit

I like that.