The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters

reply to post by adjensen


Such a good idea that I just U2U'd a link to your post to the ATSLive folks!

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by adjensen

 

Such a good idea that I just U2U'd a link to your post to the ATSLive folks!

Crap, didn't think that you'd take me seriously, you know

Though maybe a live debate on ATSLive would be interesting (between you and... Rising Against, maybe. On the subject of "Obama is a Nazi alien infiltrator" or something like that, lol)

reply to post by seabag


I agree 100% with the idea of 3 judges on every debate and I also would much rather see a point system, as suggested by a couple of fighters weighing in (Yes! Pun intended! lol) on this matter.

I am totally a greenhorn in the forum, having just finished my first debate...and having made my opponent wait because of first being ill myself and then my mom who I take care of...but I have read two debates with the intention of judging...the second one being also waylaid by getting sick but I can honestly say that I hesitated a day or so and then got sick...if I had been judging with just a point system toward winner or loser, I would not have felt hesitant or reluctant for that first time judging. My hesitation arose mainly because of not being sure of what to write in my judgment...reading other debate judgments, I thought, would help me to form my own, but it really didn't help at all.

The truth is, if I am judging a debate, I don't really want to make comments or voice opinion because that seems more like the debating part rather than the judging part. I can easily decide who I feel won the debate but can't really 'show my work' as far as WHY or HOW I came to that decision. The apparent reason is that because one person was more persuasive/convincing/effective than the other. Explaining what is behind my decision seems more like a critique than a judgment of which participant is the winner of the debate....aka 'scoring' the debate.

If that makes sense.

I have not, as of yet, been undecided after reading any debate in this forum. I can see how a tie, except for the rare instance, would be a less-than-satisfying conclusion to the effort put forth to present one's side of any given argument.

I also think that very possibly comments give away the identity of a judge. Common courtesy combined with a lack of total anonymity might be the reason for the ties...with a result acquired through a number-based scoring system by 3 unnamed judges, there is freedom to judge without concession to our friendliness with each other or other social conventions that have the tendency to make us want to tippy-toe. I think everyone would agree that debates are not the place to tippy-toe and in fact are one environment in which we can truly be liberated from that kind of thing...


I also think that perhaps it might be set up, however informally or otherwise that the mods see fit, in some sort of rotation that isn't really compulsory but which makes it fair as far as participating and finding judges...for example, saying perhaps that for every debate a fighter participates in, they are encouraged to participate in the judging of 2, or 3 or whatever, other debates. That is just a suggestion from a greenhorn, though. Salt is good with greenhorn suggestions, if you dig.

reply to post by queenannie38

I also think that very possibly comments give away the identity of a judge. Common courtesy combined with a lack of total anonymity might be the reason for the ties...with a result acquired through a number-based scoring system by 3 unnamed judges, there is freedom to judge without concession to our friendliness with each other or other social conventions that have the tendency to make us want to tippy-toe.

I find that to be a very important point !

I had already proposed a Round per Round Judgment, which would at times finish in a tie also, which could also require a tie-breaking judge. I would add that detailing to the moderator why a judge would give such a round to this debater (in order to show impartiality) but making the judgment look like this...could be an idea:

----------

The O.B.E. Debate (example)

----------

Judge 1

Round 1: Hefficide
Round 2: Hefficide
Round 3: Hefficide

Judge 2

Round 1: Hefficide
Round 2: SonoftheSun
Round 3: SonoftheSun

Tie-Breaker: Nil

4/2 Decision...Hefficide is the winner.

----------

It doesn't show who judged and a debater could always contest to the mod if he/she wanted more details. The judges remain fully anonymous and a round per round judgment would decrease the tie factor.

Just an idea.

I'm always available to be a judge as well, but since I debate a lot, it's kinda hard to match me up. I know that. However, I am always willing to help out, in whatever way possible.

There have been many great debates so far, and yes, it's hard to state a winner at times, simply because of the effort both members contribute.

The best solution for now is to get more people involved.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Second post in the "Socialism is Good For America" debate is up!

Since the majority of voices in here favor a 3 judge system, a 3 judge system is hereby granted (a third juge to break a tie). There will be no more ties.

But dont come whining if you had a REALLY good debate and lose it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Since the majority of voices in here favor a 3 judge system, a 3 judge system is hereby granted (a third juge to break a tie). There will be no more ties.

Thanks for listening and being open to the concern.

But dont come whining if you had a REALLY good debate and lose it.

Just keep this baby handy to bestow on anyone who does.

Since I have issues... technically I could count as three judges all by myself...

Yay for no more ties!

Of course you do realize that means all future debates are now STEEL CAGE DEATH MATCHES!

~Heff

Ties should be few. I'm sorry the decision comes down to no more ties, but alas, such is the direction it has went.

With reluctance, I do agree a three judge panel, is the best course of action, with the third judge needed only when a tie is presented, to rule as a tie-breaker.

May God have mercy on us all.

Perhaps we need to come up with a list of certain parameters the judges must "check off" as they judge the debate. As of now, the judging is done with nothing more than subjective opinion in hand.

So maybe we need to look at how we judge debates and not just throw more people at the problem.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Yes, I agree with your suggestion! It would greatly help me to help out with the judging to have some kind of guide.

Maybe it would help the scarcity and/or lack/demand of judges if things were a little bit more outlined. I'm thinking it would, but I don't get paid to think.

I don't get paid at all.

Just a quick search will bring up things like this:



This is a HS-style debate scoring sheet that will not completely work with the format we us on ATS, but I'm sure we could come up with something similar to assist in the judging of the debates.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Challenge Match: Seabag Vs. Sheepslayer247- Socialism is good for America

My second response has been POSTED.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Since the majority of voices in here favor a 3 judge system, a 3 judge system is hereby granted (a third juge to break a tie). There will be no more ties.

But dont come whining if you had a REALLY good debate and lose it.

AWESOME!

….and thank you for listening! No tears will be shed on this end.

On the other hand, Sheepslayer247, prepare to be the first recipient of an OFFICIAL 3 JUDGE LOSS!

KIDDING!

I think Seabag and I have each other all riled up....because here is my last post in the "Socialism is Good for America" debate.

Link

reply to post by Skyfloating


Challenge Match: Seabag Vs. Sheepslayer247- Socialism is good for America

My closing statement has been posted and our debate is now ready to be judged….

May the best man win!

Hi everyone,

New fighter here. Pretty excited to get involved in the debate forum.

So, I'm sitting here watching Monday morning sports shows like I always do during football season. Added bonus is the baseball playoffs happening. I'm a huge sports fan it's probably my most committed passion.

As I've been spending a lot of time on ATS recently and am a pretty big conspiracy theorist, I've realized that being a huge sports fan is a bit of a paradox here. Sports even get shunned by some.

So, anyone want to debate me on this premise:

Sports culture is good for American society

?

I'd be taking the pro position.


It may seem a lighter topic than is normally chosen here, but it's really not. Sports is one of the cultural aspects that defines America. Question here is for the positive or negative? Implications include business, education, morals, health, more....


Should be noted that I'm currently discussing topics for a separate debate with another member, is it okay to do two at once if anyone takes the challenge?

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Good topic. I wont take the con position on that one but I bet someone else will.

Yes, you can have more than one debate running at one time.

Enjoy your stay.

Debate approval request:

Signals and I would like to debate the following subject:

Is the Illuminati still holding an influence nowadays?

Signals would be taking the pro side and I the con. I would start the debate shortly after it being approved.

Thanks !!