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!!
Nonono, this isn't the actual place for debate, only the place to get to the place... or something. I reluctantly hand over the challenge to Devoidless who accepted. The debate will be held on this profile:
Hey Ricador, I'll take you on, but I'm a bit confused. Are they trying to take over the world using their high prices? If that is what you think, then I got some things to debate about.
Anyone up for a debate on political theory? My stance is going to seem a bit long, though it's necessary so that there's a definite positive and negative case. Also, though I do have evidence to back up my claims, I think this will come down more to argument strength than actual citations, since this is more a debate on ethics. I think.
Topic: Styles of Government Stance: The ideal form of government would do away with democracy - it's a failed concept that leads to corruption just like in most systems. However, under a well-executed fascist system, the people as a whole can flourish and the nation can ascend to a more glorious state than under any other political system. tl;dr - Fascism > Other governments.
Im not certain how much I like the words Fascism, Glorious, Flourish and Ascend in the same paragraph. Democracy has its failings, but its not too shabby when compared to others.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." -Winston Churchill
Hm, kinda smells like Megamickel laid a great big ol' pile of Hobbes over there But I'd really like to see that debate! In the meantime, we have Ricador vs. XCoheedX on the evil oil companies!! This will be on: http://armorgames.com/user/Debate_Misc2
Ricador, you will present your argument first! Happy Debating!!
