OTz Debate Tournament v2.7

Leah Love said:
The voters need to make their choice based on the posts of the two debaters, and not a third member's.
Click to expand...
Third member? Hell.... I was hoping it would be 20 members! :D

Surely it would be unfair towards the two debaters who had limited words and posts to defend their standpoints if someone came in who didn't have the same limitation and argued against them, especially if they are forbidden to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
The debaters would know upfront that others would be commenting on.... not debating..... the good... the bad.... and the ugly of the debater's points.

Prior to the actual vote. Might make the debaters think twice about the 'crap' they might post in regards to the topic at hand. Maybe the debaters would really have to think before they hit submit. Sort of the 'big brother is watching' concept.

It would just be for fun. Nothing serious. If another member started getting 'stupid' and out of hand in regards to picking apart the debater's post(s)..... well..... that would be sorry indeed.

I just think it would be fun to express opinions prior to the vote. :)

I strongly support the idea of other members engaging in the debate, pointing out things that had been overlooked or misinterpreted, but only after the voting has been concluded so as to not influence the other voters.
Click to expand...
That's the problem here in America when it comes to voting. People go to the polls and pick someone even though they know not what the position of the person(s) on the ballot is actually all about. Sometimes a little 'influence' or 'swaying' of the vote can be a good thing.

*shrugs*

Again...... I just think it would be fun. It would make everyone think before they vote. It would make the debaters 'think' before they post. :D
 
Also, about voting, do we really have to provide some long-winded comment on why we voted for them. If we really have to add a comment though, can it just be a line, and not just a measly "I vote for so and so because I agree with them"? We ought to actually acknowledge people's debates and how well they debate, not just because you have the same point of view as them.
I think adding the commenting to votes is what deterred people from voting in the first place.
 
KimmyCharmeleon said:
Also, about voting, do we really have to provide some long-winded comment on why we voted for them. If we really have to add a comment though, can it just be a line, and not just a measly "I vote for so and so because I agree with them"? We ought to actually acknowledge people's debates and how well they debate, not just because you have the same point of view as them.
I think adding the commenting to votes is what deterred people from voting in the first place.
Click to expand...

It's a tricky area that is, I know I appreciated the fact that people voting were more likely to vote because they'd thought about the debate and who did better, rather than whoever happened to have the most supporters online getting it.

But it's also true that some people probably avoided voting because they had to justify their vote. I'm pretty sure I voted with some very simple lines a few times, especially at the start when there were several debates to read through. I just said who I thought defended their argument better.
 
HK said:
It's a tricky area that is, I know I appreciated the fact that people voting were more likely to vote because they'd thought about the debate and who did better, rather than whoever happened to have the most supporters online getting it.

But it's also true that some people probably avoided voting because they had to justify their vote. I'm pretty sure I voted with some very simple lines a few times, especially at the start when there were several debates to read through. I just said who I thought defended their argument better.
Click to expand...

I agree. It isn't meant to be about voting for the person who you agree with... it's meant to be won on the merit of their debate. I voted more than once for the person whose opinion I disagreed with, but who had conducted a better debate. And really, can it be so hard to pay enough attention when reading through the thread to form an opinion on who presented the better argument.
 
RedRyder said:
Oh, I agree. But I think it would be fun to 'debate' with the others right there in the thread. I mean.... I read some of the voters comments and would have liked to point things out to them where I felt they were too harsh or dead wrong or where I felt they had misinterpreted something said by the debaters.
Click to expand...

I think that defeats the point of the debate. You should be able to put your argument across clearly enough that you wouldn't need to explain to people how they should be interpreted.

I liked the way it was done in the previous tournament.
 
RedRyder said:
Third member? Hell.... I was hoping it would be 20 members! :D

The debaters would know upfront that others would be commenting on.... not debating..... the good... the bad.... and the ugly of the debater's points.

Prior to the actual vote. Might make the debaters think twice about the 'crap' they might post in regards to the topic at hand. Maybe the debaters would really have to think before they hit submit. Sort of the 'big brother is watching' concept.

It would just be for fun. Nothing serious. If another member started getting 'stupid' and out of hand in regards to picking apart the debater's post(s)..... well..... that would be sorry indeed.

I just think it would be fun to express opinions prior to the vote. :)

That's the problem here in America when it comes to voting. People go to the polls and pick someone even though they know not what the position of the person(s) on the ballot is actually all about. Sometimes a little 'influence' or 'swaying' of the vote can be a good thing.

*shrugs*

Again...... I just think it would be fun. It would make everyone think before they vote. It would make the debaters 'think' before they post. :D
Click to expand...

I do believe that in the previous debates everyone did their best, researched their topics and thought about what they wished to say and how they wanted it to come across. If they succeeded or not, that is a different matter entirely and of subjective nature.

With voting, a member expresses their opinion, and an opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. Different people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts, or in our case, the same debate.

If other members commented on this particular debate, pointed out things that in THEIR opinion were wrong or right, it would influence the other voters. I know none of the forum's members need this, since every single one of them is intelligent enough to draw their own conclusion and form their own opinion, rather then parrot someone else's.

Each debater should receive votes based on their own merits and not because someone argued that they meant something different then what came across from their post.

Third member or the 20th, it does not matter. If someone else's explanation of your posts brings you the vote, then frankly, you did not deserve it.

And with this I conclude my reasoning and my end of this mock-debate. I am sure though that you Red wish to have the last word. ;)
 
If you're adopting the "Red Rule", I'm out.

Under her scenario, me and HK could be debating and she soundly thrashes me, then Parka comes in, points out something that I should have brought up and I end up winning. Pass.

My main issue with the "Red Rule" is this line:
That's the problem here in America when it comes to voting. People go to the polls and pick someone even though they know not what the position of the person(s) on the ballot is actually all about. Sometimes a little 'influence' or 'swaying' of the vote can be a good thing.
Click to expand...
This is NOT an election on the pros and cons of gun control or Dumbledore's silence. Lives do not balance on us getting this right. If that were the case, then yes- let's talk it out. But it's not.

Debate is not democracy, but demagoguery. The only thing that matters is how well YOU can state YOUR case and tear down YOUR opponents case.

The point of the exercise is a one-on-one contest- not actually settling whether or not giving revolvers to cheerleaders is a good idea.


If the "Red Rule" is not implemented, I'm in.
 
We're not allowing other people to comment on the debate after it has finished. The point of the debate, and subsequent voting, is to prove why your stance has more validity than the opposing opinion. If you want to discuss the debate on the side, we can use the existing thread for that, or create a new one.

As far as the voting itself goes, the point of giving an explanation is to weed out people that simply vote because they like person x, or they're voting because they agree with person y's opinion, but aren't voting for them based on the merits of the debate. You don't have to agree with someone's stance in order to vote for them, you vote for them because they did a better job of debating their stance than the other person.

Leah - I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention and didn't see the may ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
retro said:
We're not allowing other people to comment on the debate after it has finished. The point of the debate, and subsequent voting, is to prove why your stance has more validity than the opposing opinion. If you want to discuss the debate on the side, we can use the existing thread for that, or create a new one.

As far as the voting itself goes, the point of giving an explanation is to weed out people that simply vote because they like person x, or they're voting because they agree with person y's opinion, but aren't voting for them based on the merits of the debate. You don't have to agree with someone's stance in order to vote for them, you vote for them because they did a better job of debating their stance than the other person.

Leah - I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention and didn't see the may ;)
Click to expand...

Is this a "We aren't doing the 'Red Rule'." statement?

If so, count me in.

Also, Leah is in. She was just giving you crap. :p
 
Back
Top