First Member Judged Debates and First-Timers-Only Tournament

reply to post by GAOTU789

Before the debate started, i sent a meesage saying that I wanted the pro side of the debate.
didn't happen.

congrats to my opponent, I'll add you.

congrats to me, too

lmao

drunk and silly

In fairness, i had just read a book called "Journeyof Souls" about 6 months before.

I really enjoyed that - nice one

Whew... Thank God that's over. I really must apologise for my sketchy posts. I am not a very erudite man, and it shows. I may have bitten off more than I could chew entering into this forum. I am trying to brush up on my entries and hopefully they made more sense as the debate progressed. Thanks to those who took the time to read the thread.

whoa ... I forgot to check up on here, lots of posts (I was checking the debate forum list regularly and suddenly noticed that this wasn't part of it)

I was disappointed the pstiffy missed a couple posts, I was waiting patiently, I hope all is well for that member. I felt they were doing a fine job. I just like to argue, or, so I was told by my family growing up and my ex-fiance! Told me I should be a lawyer ... no thanks.


I actually didn't agree with the stance I was given, though I tried anyway. It seems it was a much easier topic than some of the others! My goodness. Some very serious topics going on.

Thanks for the advice and support staff, I am sure all the competitors appreciate it.

Good job everyone participating!

Round 2 will feature the following matchups:

Xtrozero v Budski

FreeThinkerIdealist v SkyFloating

Beelzebubba v IsaacKoi

Shearder v Souls

Topics will be announced soon and debates will begin by Saturday at the very latest.

Right now I'd like to invite discussion of what went right and wrong, both from the participants and onlookers. Veteran debaters may feel free to provide pointers here, but let's provide them openly and to everyone.

Oh and PS, your rankings have been updated. You are climbing the ladder.

Hey ALL!!!!!

Congratulations to all the winners!!!!!! A job well done with some controversial topics...

I thought I would post a little "Do's and Don't's" for debating....

So here goes...

Debating “Do’s and Don’ts”

Openings

1. State your case.
2. Do not try and tell the reader what your opponent will post. You may be wrong.
3. Be positive and confident in what you are going to prove or support.
4. If you can’t prove it or support it, don’t claim it.
5. Whether you believe in it or not, make the reader think that you do.
6. Pick a direction and stay the course.
7. Use ALL or as close as possible to ALL of your character count.
8. NO!!! “EX” Use your own words.


Replies

1. Answer as many of your opponent’s comments as you can.
2. DO NOT ALLOW YOUR OPPONENT TO GOAD YOU.
3. Stay on topic and in relation to your opening.
4. STAY AWAY from “EX” (External Quotes), use “Links” (URLS) instead. (They save space and do the same thing
5. USE as much of your character count as possible. (Walk away and come back to it if you get a “Brain Freeze”)
6. Watch for openings such as your opponent straying off topic.
7. READ ALL of your opponents replies more than once.
8. If you make a qualifying comment, make sure you support it with a “Link”.


Closing

1. Conclude with assertions of what you have proven.
2. Do not use the closing for replies unless it helps establish a closing.
3. AGAIN! Be confident in what you have presented.
4. AGAIN! Use your entire character count.


Lastly, remember research, research, research is the key of course.

If you draw a side that you do not believe in, do not despair or give in, if you look you will find information that will support any side of any debate. Find it and form your debate around that foundation.

Be Creative
Use Your Imagination

You CAN win if YOU think you can

Semper

Looking forward to the next round...

Semper

Thankfully, I got a subject I knew a little about - but only from the pro side.

I think that I got a little off track at times and spent too much time trying to refute my opponents points rather than reinforcing my own and this showed in my closing more than anywhere else.

That said, I think it was an OK first attempt, made more difficult by the quality of my opponent - which is how it should be.

I haven't debated for many years, and never online, so this was a pretty steep learning curve.

Thanks also to semper and others for valuable tips.

I enjoyed reading all the debates. I look forward to round two because I can see the opponents getting much tougher to beat.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Skyfloating]

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Skyfloating]

More ideas for second round topics:

Hypnosis recovers memories vs. fantasy
There is no world bankers conspiracy vs. there is
Lemuria (sunken continent in the pacific) existed vs. it didnt
Television = mind control vs. Television is good

Interpret the question in a way that favors your side but is plausible.

Decide on 3 major parts of the debate or 3 types of evidence if the topic itself is narrow, so that each of your body posts attacks from a different angle.

In your intro, first separate yourself from any weakness in your position- for example if the topic is "Hitler had great fashion sense" and you've got the pro position, you obviously want to start out by saying bad things about Hitler and making it clear that the only thing you're defending is the funny hats and tall boots.

Then establish ethical boundaries if need be: in the above example, I'd immediately refuse to engage on any question related to the holocaust because its irrelevant and I refuse to defend it. You thereby take the highground in avoiding some very loaded questions.

Then lay out the subjects or types of evidence you will cover, a series of 3-6 points that will be proven, and an explanation of how those 3-6 premises imply the conclusion that your position is correct.

Take one subject or type of evidence per post. Try to split your post 2/3s for your own case, 1/3 for rebuttals. Minimize quoting. Use your links like citations in an academic paper- it's efficient.

Use subheadings to help the reader keep track of what you're talking about, with bolded or underlined summary sentences when appropriate, bulleted lists if needbe, etc.

Whenever your opponent changes subjects or types of evidence, fails to answer a question, contradicts himself, or goes away from any outline he might have presented, nail him on it. Never miss an opportunity to hold their feet to the fire, but also never pretend the did something when they didn't- people will notice.
I always help the judges keep score- I always point out when my opponent has to retreat, and in the conclusion i tally up how many times I got him.

I've also been known to try and characterize my opponent's future arguments, but that is very dangerous, and really I do it too much. It is worth doing when you think you are more familiar with the subject than your opponent and you want to scare him away from his best hope by making it look like you already have that covered.


Also, feel free to make a contact sport out of this. Use sarcasm, humor, and quotes from your opponent in ironic contexts. You don't want to be outright mean, but when I debate, I often am trying to get under the opponents skin. The goal is to be funny and good-natured about it, so that when he gets upset, it's only because he's taking things too personally, so it's all his fault. You also would be better off admitting and laughing about your mistakes than trying to deny them.

If you want to see that in action, read the debate final between me and rdube www.abovetopsecret.com... We really had at eachother.

If you want to see how that can backfire, read the debate between me and Zenlover. That was my worst debate ever. I went way too far and I made some really stupid mistakes. I had to bring my A-game to the final to be forgiven for that one.

Thanks Semper and Vagabond, there is some great advice to be taken in your posts. My first post in the debate was a real shocker and was pretty darned "ex" heavy (thanks Semper, Chissler, and Vagabond for pointing out that this was not a very desirable form of posting). My grammmar and spelling left a little to be desired throughout, but I hope the posts pulled together a bit better as the debate progressed.

If anyone has any specific critiques that can help me brush up, it would be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to meeting IsaacKoi in the next debate (btw, Is he really a Barrister?).

Oh, I have a couple of topic suggestions:

- Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald; Fatal Vision or Fatal Justice?

- SRA, Fact or Myth?

- Freemasonry; Altruistic or Ripe for Corruption?








[edit on 10/10/2007 by Beelzebubba]

You know something Vagabond?

I REALLY want a shot at you some time...

How about we do a debate, "just for fun" so you wont have to do anything drastic like stop being a MOD...

Your a GREAT MOD and you really care, so that is infinitely more important, but I would really like to debate you sometime...

Semper

Things I think went wrong in the first round:

People jumped at the chance to debate before realizing how much work you need to put into it.

Debaters got topics that they knew little about, so they decided not to participate for lack of knowledge and no desire to research.

Debaters discovered relying on external quotes wasn't going to win it for them.

Things that went right in the first round:

Some debaters discovered something about themselves and their ability to articulate thoughts.

Debaters found that these debate's, although tough, can be fun.

For me personally, I found out that ignoring a point won't make it go away. I also found out that I can hold my own in these debate's. Budski won but I felt that it was a close one. I think he deserved to win but since we didn't get comments from our judge or Vagabond we don't know how close it really was. Which reminds me; can we get some comments Vagabond? You can u2u them to me if you want. I'd, and I'm sure budski would also, just like to know the good and bad parts for future reference. Things to work on so to speak.

reply to post by semperfortis


Now this I would like to see. The reigning champ versus a former champ. I'm sure most of ATS would be watching this one closely. Do it up Vagabond, Iit would be like an ATS Super Cup.

reply to post by GAOTU789


I think your and budskis debate was the closest one. I was under the impression that you had won it only to return a few days later and see the tides had turned.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Thats what I thought too - but I tried to save my strongest argument for last, and apparently it worked.
Had me sweating though.
A lot.

To be fair to The Vagabond, he has A LOT!!! going on in his life at this time....

It is a wonderful example of how much he loves these debates that he takes the time to monitor them as he does....

So any match would have to wait until he has some free time...

In short, I want him FRESH and UNFETTERED when I kick his butt... LOL

Semper

I would love to get back into the ring. Anytime after early January would be best- up until then I'm juggling way too much stuff to give my usual quality. Trying to get into Harvard is time-intensive.

Oh, I'll also have comments later for those who recieved none.

Vagabond, Don't think I'm going to take it easy on you just because you have to "settle" for Harvard......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Man I crack myself up"

Semper