Discussion About OTz Team Debates

[debbie t]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This sounds like fun, though I wouldn't be interested in it unless I'm joined by other with similar beliefs as me. IMO, there a good chance that I could end up with a whole group that hardly shares the same beliefs. This could be really frustrating, since they could just keep throwing my input out as it doesn't coincide with their input.

If I was in the same group as Intruder, I might as well go beat my head against the wall..

thats a fair point to be taken into consideration,it wouldnt be so much the person you objected to but the subject if you were passionate about a particular belief,so those things would have to sorted out before hand dependent on the subject etc

 

[Ria]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

no not at all it, would be boring ..i meant at least well have colour spelled correctly

This sounds like fun, though I wouldn't be interested in it unless I'm joined by other with similar beliefs as me. IMO, there a good chance that I could end up with a whole group that hardly shares the same beliefs. This could be really frustrating, since they could just keep throwing my input out as it doesn't coincide with their input.

If I was in the same group as Intruder, I might as well go beat my head against the wall..

Already you are debating the against without even knowing which team you are on.

I dunno, can't please some. :smiley24:

I think whoever's the one arranging the teams, should be left to decide who goes with which team - then I reckon, if anyone's not happy about being in that team, they don't have to join in, I would imagine.

 

[Ria]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

no not at all it, would be boring ..i meant at least well have colour spelled correctly

LOL, Deb, your wit is so sharp girl - excellent!!!

 

[debbie t]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Already you are debating the against without even knowing which team you are on.

I dunno, can't please some. :smiley24:

I think whoever's the one arranging the teams, should be left to decide who goes with which team - then I reckon, if anyone's not happy about being in that team, they don't have to join in, I would imagine.

i would actually quite like the challenge of being for something im against(oh that was great english wasnt it?) it would be quite a challenge .intruder for instance has said things in other debates i couldnt get my head around and been good enough to send me info to explain and it was useful and a real insight

 

[dt3]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Make a new thread. See who's interested, and get this one back to the glorious bombings of 1945.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I don't see how they are glorious.

 

[dt3]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I don't see how they are glorious.

I don't see how Kazakhstan is glorious, but apparently Borat thinks it's a fine country.

And yes, I'm aware that movie was a joke. As was my post.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Great! Whichever way you decide.

So, does this mean that you are doing all the sorting out then, or who is?

No. It's just that I thought of the idea as Debbs mentioned something about debating in one of her comments.

Perhaps one of the moderators in debate could organise it. I'm just throwing out ideas here. Members can suggest topics for debate which can be chosen etc. The possibilities are endless.

 

[Pudding Time]

OK. Here's the thread for the discussion of the team debate concept brought up by CB. Would be a good idea for the mods to move the talk about this from the A-bomb thread, to here.

I think it's a good idea. Let's brainstorm it and figure out the details.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Make a new thread. See who's interested, and get this one back to the glorious bombings of 1945.

Sorry, hadn't seen this post at the point of the one I posted above.

Agreed.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Thanks a lot for opening the thread Pudding.
Plus, I like the name of the title for the "games" as you put it "OTz Team Debates". <---Simple and to the point.

As I was suggesting, teams of about 5 per side could be drawn up (random pick preferably).
Potential interesting topics for debate can be suggested by members and/or put forward by the moderator.
We already have moderators for this section (dt3, ponygirl) so that is no probs.
Subject is chosen and sides are assigned whether "For" or "Against".
Debate starts and continues for X duration (1-2 weeks).
Debates not limited to one topic. Eg: Another topic may be debated on another thread between 2 different teams.

In order to not make tedious, debate flows fluently...any member choosing to input according to time and convenience as currently obtains.
The only thing is that one side presents their views "For" or "Against" (whichever had been determined) as best/interestingly as possible. This serves to have a focussed position and also to think out of the box with regard to presenting a point of view that you may have otherwise been against. This is the general understanding so no one will hold it against you.

The idea is to have meaningful discussion, education, team spirit (yes, even with someone who you may have probably been at loggerheads with before...and this is a big positive)........and a good time.

 

[dt3]

I think it'd work a little better if we made seperate threads, like the Science Fair. One thread for, one thread against. Then after a week or so, open up a combined discussiont thread. How's that sound?

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This sounds like fun, though I wouldn't be interested in it unless I'm joined by other with similar beliefs as me. IMO, there a good chance that I could end up with a whole group that hardly shares the same beliefs. This could be really frustrating, since they could just keep throwing my input out as it doesn't coincide with their input.

If I was in the same group as Intruder, I might as well go beat my head against the wall..

I'll be glad to be on your team.

 

[Ria]

i would actually quite like the challenge of being for something im against(oh that was great english wasnt it?) it would be quite a challenge .intruder for instance has said things in other debates i couldnt get my head around and been good enough to send me info to explain and it was useful and a real insight

Oh right ok, so we can then say yes or no as to whether or not we want to join that particular topic then for the team debate? That'd be good if so.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I think it'd work a little better if we made seperate threads, like the Science Fair. One thread for, one thread against. Then after a week or so, open up a combined discussiont thread. How's that sound?

Now, if you had one thread with "For" proponents that won't make a debate would it?....at least not in the sense of a fluent debate in same room with debaters feeding off one another's points of view as unfolds.

 

[debbie t]

Now, if you had one thread with "For" proponents that won't make a debate would it?....at least not in the sense of a fluent debate in same room with debaters feeding off one another's points of view as unfolds.

thats true..perhaps we could have a day each taking turns for a set length of time.
fors one day,against the next day and so on?

 

[Ria]

thats true..perhaps we could have a day each taking turns for a set length of time.
fors one day,against the next day and so on?

Yeah, that would be a good idea, but everyone in the teams would need to commit to being here on the same day as the rest of their team, to continue it.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I think AEF and I should just go ahead and take everyone on

 

[debbie t]

I think AEF and I should just go ahead and take everyone on

what ?...do you want to lose?:24:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

what ?...do you want to lose?:24:

I will intellectually kung fu some ass:ninja