The Debate Forum

[Maxmars]

The "wall of text" strategy is not often used... but it can be.
Addressing a list of examples can only take that form.

The problem of what a debater has to respond to is part of the challenge.

And you really have to respond to your opponents point directly and precisely,
it's not a "choice."  If you dismiss it... you must say so.

Otherwise it's just people talking past each other.... like the pit...

Debate isn't just a presentation performance...
the product is the value, not the performance.

What did we learn from this debate?...
(assuming your not only listening to words you like.)

One contends that the signs pointing to fascism are everywhere... in so many facets of our public servant activities, that not acknowledging it is illogical. 

The other argument seems to be "No it's not."  (That is no way to make a point.)

Lots of mistakes I didn't expect to see, lots of 'confusion' that was out of place, almost as if this was really just a grudge encounter between two long-standing rivals... brought to our doorstep... with no intention of resolving a debate at all.  Just point.... ignore... point... ignore... you know exactly what I am talking about.

Not an overall good vibe to take away from something that was presented as a debate... 

The judges are deliberating.

[ElitePlebeian]

The "wall of text" strategy is not often used... but it can be.
Addressing a list of examples can only take that form.

The problem of what a debater has to respond to is part of the challenge.

And you really have to respond to your opponents point directly and precisely,
it's not a "choice."  If you dismiss it... you must say so.

Otherwise it's just people talking past each other.... like the pit...

Debate isn't just a presentation performance...
the product is the value, not the performance.

What did we learn from this debate?...
(assuming your not only listening to words you like.)

One contends that the signs pointing to fascism are everywhere... in so many facets of our public servant activities, that not acknowledging it is illogical. 

The other argument seems to be "No it's not."  (That is no way to make a point.)

Lots of mistakes I didn't expect to see, lots of 'confusion' that was out of place, almost as if this was really just a grudge encounter between two long-standing rivals... brought to our doorstep... with no intention of resolving a debate at all.  Just point.... ignore... point... ignore... you know exactly what I am talking about.

Not an overall good vibe to take away from something that was presented as a debate... 

The judges are deliberating.

Maybe move this thread to the debate forum part so spectators can use it to discuss the debates? 

 Assuming you mean a wall of text is more than the word limit I disagree with that as a strategy. The limit is also there because you cant have a moderator sit next to participants to tell them to wrap it up so the opponent can respond. The word limit replaces the timer and moderator in a live debate.

[DBCowboy]

I'll admit it was unconventional, to say the least.

I will accept whatever ruling is applied.

[Maxmars]

Maybe move this thread to the debate forum part so spectators can use it to discuss the debates? 

 Assuming you mean a wall of text is more than the word limit I disagree with that as a strategy. The limit is also there because you cant have a moderator sit next to participants to tell them to wrap it up so the opponent can respond. The word limit replaces the timer and moderator in a live debate.

Our esteemed engineer created the forum specifically for use by fighters...
Our rationale was that the debate forum would feature the debates.
As a single undiluted place.

After participating in a DI Debate a member becomes a "Fighter."

Fighters will have the prerogative of creating debates there... between themselves.
We offer judgment ... but not if it's not wanted.

Only fighters can post in the Debate forum.

WE can't "open it up" by thread in that forum...
so it will remain a repository for a specific kind of content...

Of course, no one here is a robot... so I'm always interested in a better way...
as long as that means it ends with Debate remaining debate... and not some media/partisan Kabuki theater.
I like the idea of a commentary on debates for all to participate... 



Before she was scuttled, ATS featured essentially the same kind of debate activity, well-enjoyed by many... why not continue the community tradition?

I had always maintained that politicians, activists, and zealots loathe true debate...
Here in you can all see why.  The bullshit floats to the surface almost immediately.

The timing constraint is for our convenience really...
two or more debaters can following these rules carry on a debate endlessly...
if they are enthusiastic and eager.

When it's televised or produced, debate "manufactures" a time constraint...
since it is "on the spot" and a production... it must be so.

In our format, debaters have the luxury of thinking out their arguments, measuring them, and crafting a response with deliberation... not haste.  We ask for 24 hour responses because we want to see it happen in close to real-time... otherwise debates could take weeks, or even months... given a very deep focus on a very tenuous  assertion.  The essential definition of "fascism" could have been one such deep debate. That wasn't the point of the last one... just an opportunity in hindsight.

Honestly, fighters can negotiate with each other in the debate forum to settle on a 3 hour or 3 day response time, or a 2000 word limit... or how about 150?... or whatever... in there, it is up to the fighters... (imagine a debate where you can't use any quotes.) ...

just consult with a moderator to launch... boom... debate.

[ElitePlebeian]

Our esteemed engineer created the forum specifically for use by fighters...
Our rationale was that the debate forum would feature the debates.
As a single undiluted place.

After participating in a DI Debate a member becomes a "Fighter."

Fighters will have the prerogative of creating debates there... between themselves.
We offer judgment ... but not if it's not wanted.

Only fighters can post in the Debate forum.

WE can't "open it up" by thread in that forum...
so it will remain a repository for a specific kind of content...

Of course, no one here is a robot... so I'm always interested in a better way...
as long as that means it ends with Debate remaining debate... and not some media/partisan Kabuki theater.
I like the idea of a commentary on debates for all to participate... 



Before she was scuttled, ATS featured essentially the same kind of debate activity, well-enjoyed by many... why not continue the community tradition?

I had always maintained that politicians, activists, and zealots loathe true debate...
Here in you can all see why.  The bullshit floats to the surface almost immediately.

The timing constraint is for our convenience really...
two or more debaters can following these rules carry on a debate endlessly...
if they are enthusiastic and eager.

When it's televised or produced, debate "manufactures" a time constraint...
since it is "on the spot" and a production... it must be so.

In our format, debaters have the luxury of thinking out their arguments, measuring them, and crafting a response with deliberation... not haste.  We ask for 24 hour responses because we want to see it happen in close to real-time... otherwise debates could take weeks, or even months... given a very deep focus on a very tenuous  assertion.  The essential definition of "fascism" could have been one such deep debate. That wasn't the point of the last one... just an opportunity in hindsight.

Honestly, fighters can negotiate with each other in the debate forum to settle on a 3 hour or 3 day response time, or a 2000 word limit... or how about 150?... or whatever... in there, it is up to the fighters... (imagine a debate where you can't use any quotes.) ...

just consult with a moderator to launch... boom... debate.

Ah I wasnt aware of that, never seen in in ATS either, from what I remember, which speaks for how DI is setup I guess.  i just read ideomotor say himself he went far over the word count and then I read the old ATS rules you posted assuming those were maintained? If thats not the case I stand corrected.

But maybe its good practise to mention the rules the participants agreed to in your opening post as moderator.

Yes I think it would be nice to have a spectators thread where we can discuss the debates or something.

[putnam6]

Ah I wasnt aware of that, never seen in in ATS either, from what I remember, which speaks for how DI is setup I guess.  i just read ideomotor say himself he went far over the word count and then I read the old ATS rules you posted assuming those were maintained? If thats not the case I stand corrected.

But maybe its good practise to mention the rules the participants agreed to in your opening post as moderator.

Yes I think it would be nice to have a spectators thread where we can discuss the debates or something.

ATS at one point allowed heckling....


Debate opens

the Dancer 



and the Sharp Shooter


end scene...