I just wanted to start anew, and adjust a couple little details here and there on the rules and such! Nothing major.
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 also, 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 one debater reaches 10 points, or until one of the debaters fails to post within 48 hours without notice as to why. In that case, that debater will be considered to have forfeit. 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. Scoring will go to 10 points. 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: Devoidless 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.
Would you be up for something other than an evolution vs creation debate? Then again I get the feeling we're on the same page on this topic, so we'd be hard pressed to find something to debate about!
For the Ice age one, it is between Crazynaitor and Stinger. The pesticide one is between Crazy and I. The Universe infinity debate is between Skyla and Estel. I will also tackle jalex with the same debate. I would love to see 2 people debating on the same general idea. FunkyMonkey is still looking for a challenger on pesticide.
FunkyMonkey and I would like to debate on the resolution "The negative effects of pesticide use outweigh the benefits." I would negate, FunkyMonkey would affirm.
I was trying to think of something other than evolution vs. creation. I was thinking about whether or not microevolution logically implies macroevolution, but I don't even like using those terms. Ho hum... stupid universe... that was a great idea... mumblemumble.
Hmm, here is an interesting one, but I wonder who would actually take the other side.... Anyway, Debate: Are viruses living? Stance: I say that they are NON living becuase of many factors, but I will elaborate once the debate starts!
http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_World2 Ice age Crazynaitor and drakokirby
http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_World1 Pesticides Crazy and GP2
http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_TheUnknown1 Universe Infinity Skyla and Estel(After this is finished and Estel still wants to do again, he can. Just do not feel up to doing a 2v1)
I am still looking for someone to take me up on my 9/11 debate. I am saying that it was staged/faked whatever kind of that label you want to give it. But again, this is notactually my real stance.
