Forums → WEPR → The Great Debate!
| 285 | 49419 |
There have been a lot of fantastic debates in this section of the forums, so I thought we could make things a bit more "interesting."
Here's how it works:
I will create profiles on which 2 people will debate one-on-one on a topic of their choosing. You will receive points based on 3 categories: argument strength, evidence, and refutation.
Argument strength is just that - how strong are your arguments. Logical fallacies and cogency of the argument play a strong role here (so, is the argument "correct" and does it make sense). Your spelling and grammar are important to, so either get a browser with spell-check or put your comments in Word or something that can check your spelling.
Evidence is articles or journals to which you can provide links to help support your argument. How reliable the evidence is also matters, so Wikipedia articles will not count towards evidence.
Refutation means being able to counter what your opponent is saying. If you can point out flaws in their argument or present counter-examples to their arguments then you can get points in this category.
The debate will go on until a predetermined score has been reached. The winner will have his or her best argument point merited - thus receiving 25 AP!
----
So, if you want to join, just put your name, the topic you would like to debate about, and how many points you would like to go to (I would suggest maybe 10 or 15 for right now, I'm not exactly sure how all the scoring will work out yet). Also include your stance on the topic.
Once you have this info posted, you have just given out a challenge and anyone can challenge you. If you would like to challenge someone, then post your name, their name, and the topic.
Feel free to create multiple challenges, so long as you can keep track of them all! Once two debaters have been matched, I'll post a link to the profile on which you guys will be debating.
I think that's everything, but here's an example of a challenge:
Name: Moegreche
Topic: Does God exist?
My stance: God does not exist!
If someone were to challenge me, then they would have to argue an opposing view to mine (in this case, that God does exist).
So, let the debates begin, and if anything is unclear or if I've missed anything then let me know either on this thread or on my profile.
Thanks, and happy debating!!
- 285 Replies
it would be cool to do a 3 way topic, thing is the only spot left in the racism part is to completely support racism, wich i dont do
I have a topic that people could use that i dont want
Illegal Immigration From Mexico
Swift, what I meant is I'm already in another debate, wondering if I could be in two at once.
o ok, i thought you meant three people in one debate...thatd be cool to though
Hm, I'd like to take Turret on his stance on "the internet".
However, I enter debates only on the condition that my opponent is able to provide a clearly articulated framework, not just a string of claims that have vaguely common presumptions, as it tends to become very haphazard.
Otherwise I end up saying "well, can you define your premises please?" a lot D:
Then, there's the other devilish thought I have- one day, I dream of throwing the gauntlet at YOU, Moe, on the topic of reductionism. :O
But I'd need to do a lot of reading to be ready for that (and familiarise myself with everything from popular science articles on quantum physics to the dissertations of Popper and Dennett...yow), and, besides, who'd adjudicate that debate?
I believe that our debate has hit a standstill... neither of us has any more points to bring up, though there are some out there. My case was scientific evidence meshed in with religious interpretation (though I wanted to stick to scientific evidence, there was no way I could do so in this particular debate). Anyways, I'd really LOVE to do this one:
Topic: End of the universe
Stance: The universe is moving by the three laws of thermodynamics; that is, towards greater entropy and equal distribution of energy, with no energy being created or destroyed. As such, we will go towards greater entropy until the universe achieves the maximum state of [Delta]S univ - that is, no process would be spontaneous any longer.
Kind of a lengthy stance, though, huh?
xD I'd really love to do this debate, though.
Mega, that's a *really hard* debate, specifically because it's speculative cosmology.
Wow. That would be totally awesome to see. But that lies a bit too far out of my comfort zone to take up at this moment...why am I even here...I should be writing...thesis...*sob*
I should be doing AP Chem homework, yet here we are.
I don't think it would be that hard, it just depends on the other person debating me and what their stance is. There's HUNDREDS of stances one could take on this.
Well, yeah, that's kinda the thing. First you'd have to pick the stance...then you'd have to figure out how those terms relate to the terms of your stance, then you'd have to figure out what evidence you're going to use.
Now that's really nebulous (PUN INTENDED!!!1!1one ) if you ask me.
That said, I'm not volunteering because while I have a passing familiarity with cosmology, I'd fall flat on my face if asked to defend a stance. I wouldn't want such an awesome topic wasted on unworthy people. Like myself.
Strop, I'm sorry, but I has to back out of the debate.
I dun have the time to even type that much, let alone post on the forums.
School Finals coming up. >.<
So I'mma have to take a leave from Armor Games. I'll miss you all :P
Lolz, Sorry Strop. >.< Not to mention, its rather hard to debate with you. I dunno where you go with things. lol. >.< Dun think I'm ready for your super competition.
Anyway, I might be back.. in a week or so. :P Later all. XP
Name: ubertuna
Topic: Outsourcing Labor
Stance: The American middle class is suffering greatly due to job loss caused by large corporations moving their production plants to countries where cheap labor is easily available.
That's alright Armed- regardless of whether you're putting the debate on hiatus or backing out altogether, that's cool. Good luck with your exams!
Ubertuna: I'd be happy to debate with you, but unfortunately I'd prefer to argue from the stance you've cited. What else you got?
Playing devil's advocate in a debate against you isn't something I'd like to do any time soon, so how about this:
Topic: Ethical Issues with the Milgram Experiment
Stance: The benefits gained through experiments similar to this one outweigh the ethical issues, as long as the participants take part in the study willingly and receive therapy (if requested) afterwards.
Sweet! You know Milgram! I assume you're specifically referring to the infamous 'Obedience to Authority' experiment.
Given that I'm rather involved in the medical research process, this is actually a topic my internal jury is still out on. If you give me a little time I might be able to mount some defense, though.
Thread is locked!