Topic awaiting preservation: Debate: rules, topics, sign-up (Page 1 of 2)

All righty then. This is a long post, but I figured if I am going to go for it, I may as well go all the way ... So grab your beverage of choice, sit back, and enjoy:

This thread serves three purposes: 1. set down rules for the formal debates
2. propose topics to be debated 3. sign up for a debate.

1. Rules

I. Signing up:
a. Browse through debate topics and/or propose your own topic.
b. Announce which topic you would like to join in on and on which side of the topic you would like to take.
c. Wait for someone else to take your side and for two other people to take the opposing side.
d. Choose a referee.
e. Wait for referee to open your specific debate topic thread.
f. There will be two teams of two members each and a referee for each debate.

II. Debate order:
a. Referee will open new topic thread and make an opening statement and announce which team will start the debate.
b. One member of first team will submit the team's 'first proposition'.
c. One member of second team will submit a 'first opposition'.
d. Other member of first team does a 'second propostion'.
e. Other member of second team does a 'second oppositon'.
f. Referee pulls a question from the 'peanut gallery' and posts it in the formal debate thread and chooses who should respond to it first.
g. Selected debator answers question.
h. One member of other team then also answers the question.
i. Referee pulls a second question and has a debator who has not answered a question yet post an answer.
j. Last debator answers second question.
k. Debate is over.

III. Debate pointers:
a. These debates are not about just spouting off random thoughts and opinions. Participants should take their time and do some research. Find facts to support your cause. Cite/quote sources from books, magazines, the internet, etc. It's easy to just throw out an opinion, but what we are looking for here is how do you support your opinion?
b. There are no strict time limits on making posts. We don't want folks messing up their arguements because he/she feels rushed. If it is someone's turn to post, and that person knows it will take a while to submit something, then that person should make a quick post announcing that he/she knows it is his/her turn and will be back in a day/week or whatever.
c. A post can be as long as the debator thinks it needs to be, keeping in mind that going too long may put some folks to sleep and going too short may force the debator to leave important points out.
d. Team members can collaborate, of course, in another thread, or via email, etc. But they shouldn't 'clutter' the formal debate thread with their plan making.
f. There will be no personal attacks or other flame-type posts!

IV. Peanut Gallery:
a. Only the debators and the referee are allowed to post in the formal debate thread.
b. The referee will open a 'peanut gallery' thread to accompany the formal debate thread. Anyone may post in the peanut gallery thread. They may comment, poke fun, throw popcorn or whatever. They should also post serious questions relevant to the debate. The referee will be taking two questions from the peanut gallery thread and using them in the formal debate thread.

V. Referee:
a. Those wishing to referee should volunteer their services here.
b. Referees will open a relevant 'formal debate' thread and a 'peanut gallery' thread.
c. Referee will make opening remark in the formal debate thread. Make clear the debate subject, the participants and which sides they are on, and which team will start.
d. Referee will prod participants along if things look like they are stalling.
e. Referee will pull questions from the peanut gallery for the question-answer part of the debate.

----------------------------
Possible debate topics:

Pirated software. Is it OK for people to use pirated software if they are not using it to make money?

Prayer in schools. Should America return to the "good ol days" of family values and make prayer mandatory in the public school classroom? How about a Moment of Silence?

Should the ten commandments be posted in public/government place (court, school, etc.)? Are some people going too far in demanding some old ten commandment displays be taken down?

Illegal Drugs. Would it be wise to make drugs legal?

Assisted Suicide. Is helping another person to die murder if he/she asked you to do it?

Is there a God? The eternal question ?

Can we have morals without religion? Is religion the source of human morals?

Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom?

Abortion. Pro-life or Pro-choice?

-----------------
OK then. If you made it this far, then you must still be interested in participating. You are welcome to post your own debate subjects, sign up for a debate, or sign up to be a referee.

Also, if the rules above are just too out of whack for the majority's liking, then please provide sugggestions for changes. Otherwise, let's get this ship launched!

I'm on board, no doubt about it. Everyone likes a good debate, right?

As for topics, BeeKay I think you just about named anything I could think of, outside of a scant few ("Police brutality, where does one draw the line?", "Racial profiling, purposeful or just racist?")... so essentially, I'm up for any of the possible topics at hand. Of course, this being a formal debate and all, one doesn't nessesarily need to fully believe in their side to state a good argument. Back in High School, the debate team would split on a subject and defend/promote it even if he/she doesn't personally believe in their own statements being made.

As such, I'm open to just about any topic, any side.

(Sorry if that seems a bit wishy washy, so, in the case that my above answer isn't valid enough for entry, I'll go ahead and pick one.)

Illegal drugs, would it be wise to make drugs legal? I chose to take my stand on the Pro side. Anyone wanna join?

And in case it matters, I'm really not all for making them legal, but decriminalization wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm rambling again...

njuice42
icq 957255

Im up for a debate and my topics are:

Prayer in school

Is there a god

Human morals without religion

__________________________________
That set aside

Beekay I still think making 2 threads, a formal and peanut gallery is a bad idea, I think like in ps pong people should be allowed to post in the debate as long as they keep in mind that that are not part of the debate and that all posts should be thought of carefully before becoming offensive or relative to the debate.

Also, I think some other topics could be,

Violence in video games

The Big Bang theory, and God/7 Days

Did Sid kill Nancy


on that last one...

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 06-08-2002).]

I might be interested to take part. As a starter, let me add in another debate topic:

A) Genetic Research - In the long term, leaving asside the issue of human genetic research, will genetic research be a benefit to the world, or will it be like a Pandora's box that once opened, leads to the destruction of humanity?
B) Human Genetic Research - Should it be done? And if so, to what extent? Discuss moral, ethical, and biological reasonings.

BeeKay, since you're the organizer of the debate, why don't you pick and chose people to form sides, as well as a topic? I'm sure no one will have a problem with the desicion, though I could be wrong

njuice42
icq 957255

Actually, BeeKay, I think you should pick the first topic. Then people who want to debate on that topic can sign-up depending on which side they want to take. The important point here is that you pick the topic. I think leaving the topic open will just produce a whole bunch of people who want to debate different topics. Not that this is a bad thing, but we need to start somewhere.

We could start, for example, with the drugs question. Once that's settled then we move on to the next one, etc. People could also propose topics (as, in fact, they are doing), which would be added to the list.

I would be intrerested in discussing:

Is There A God,
Video Game Violence, or
Is Their Alien Life

Anyone wanna debate?

And I'm sure the Doc wouldn't have a problem with more than one debate going on at a time... but I'm putting my cart before the horse, one step at a time.

*hops around in his seat*

njuice42
icq 957255

ooo alien life!!! good one cfb!

I don't see a problem with more than one debate at a time either, but we do have to start somewhere, right? Since BeeKay is moderating this, I'm going to wait for him to throw out a topic, and then I'll decide whether or not I want to debate. I'm sure once we have a solid topic, things will come together. Then we can move on with the next topic.

beekay where ya at?

Yipppeee! I'm in on these topics:

Illegal Drugs. Would it be wise to make drugs legal? - Pro
Assisted Suicide. Is helping another person to die murder if he/she asked you to do it? - Con
Can we have morals without religion? Is religion the source of human morals? - Con
Abortion. Pro-life or Pro-choice? - Pro-choice

Now let's get matched up and get started...

As for more topics...they'll be coming...don't worry. Let's start dealing with the topics at hand first, test some of the ideas by actually debating, and see how it goes...after we 'smooth' the wrikles out, then we can really get it going...Deal?

BTW - Great work, BeeKay...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 06-08-2002).]

All righty then, looks like democracy is out and dictatorship is in! Cool!

In that case, I say the debate will be about ... drugs. I will have to admit some stupidity on my part since I don't know the difference between "making them legal" and "decriminalization." Help me define that and then we'll get folks paired off.

Once that debate is rolling we will then pair off for a debate about existence of God.

So who is going pro and who is going con for the drug debate? Unless there are any objections, I will referee the first debate and then have a volunteer referee the god debate. So raise your hands, then start doing your research. We want to hear some good, convincing arguements. We could possibly even vote on a winner once the smoke clears ... dunno, what y'all think?

I still like the peanut gallery thread idea and will implement it for the first debate. If it doesn't go over well, then we can change the idea for the second debate.

Who is in?!

Cell Number: 494

Well to me I just think it would be an honor to be in the first debate so count me in on the druggies, but in the god debate, I think it would be an honor to reff that, so I volenteer for the reff in the GOD debate!

Count me in, Pro... but are there only going to be two people per team? Wouldn't want someone to miss out on their side!

"... when the smoke clears ..."

Clever

njuice42
icq 957255

Webshaman and njuice42 have stepped forward for the pro side of the drug debate. InSiDeR wants in too, but didn't pick a side. Are you up for taking the con side?

And I still need to know about the difference between "making them legal" and "decriminalization." Will that be relevant to the debate? You tell me ... I actually don't know much about the subject.

Anyone want the con side? What is the government's justification for making illegal drugs illegal? How is the war on drugs going? Is a joint more dangerous than a can of beer? Some off the wall questions, but I thought they might help some folks think up some arguements ...

Cell Number: 494

Mmm, I'll save the majority of my statements for the actual debate...

... but as far as you're asking, I'm not looking to support actual legalization (though I would in this case, seeing as how that's the extreme Pro, as I'm sure the extreme Con would be so as well), more of decriminalization. But, like I said, I'd be willing to debate for legalization if need be

njuice42
icq 957255

oops, i forgot about side i was pro but too late...

well, i can referee the drug debate i guess, unless you would like to beekay

~*bump*~

I'd go Pro for the God debate


________________
counterfeitbacon

I'm Con the god debate.

Or ref the drug debate.

Wait, on the drug debate is Pro meaning we should have or we should eliminate? If its eliminate I'll go con.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 06-10-2002).]

*bump*

C'mon...there has to be some Con drug people here, right? Where are you all?

Let's get the show on the road!

count me in for the con drugs team....

Maybe we should start with the God debate?

I'll take a closer look at what is going on tonight from home. My internet access from work is being curtailed from now on. Dadgumit.

Cell Number: 494

Con god debate, but what is CON for drug debate specify?

For the drug debate we need to have some sort of statement or resolution to be con or pro about. For instance, "drugs should be illegal in modern society". Then we pick sides and made arguments for and against the resolution. I think.

I'm a bit more passionate about the "god" one though

. . : slicePuzzle

Yes bugs its obvious your a pro god, im fearing the debate with you

I am also confused about the drug debate. If someone could step up and make a clear statement ... or second Bug's statement, then I would very much appreciate it.

Give me a day or two and I will officially kick off a debate. As I said earlier, my internet time is a bit limited lately. I don't want to just hurriedly throw anything together here. Want to do it right ...

Cell Number: 494

Beekay, by all means, let's not rush this as to failure. We'll go at your pace until you have a steady internet feed

ok,

I don't think drugs should be illegal, so for the drug debate im con for legality

I would sign up for Pro on the God debate

I'll take a crack at it... though an interesting thought popped up into my head while writing this... we all say "drugs" and lump every narcotic into one word... any particular drug to discuss, or all drugs period? It's a fickle thing, but just on assumptions, I'll merely point out marijuana as the drug in debate (as I'm thinking we all were, really...):


Drugs and Legalization

Pro Mission Statement - To make the consumption, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana legal in the United States [or insert name of country/province here], without prosecution for obtaining, using, or purchasing, using logical debate tactics and arguments that will both support the cause (Pro) and prove that it will have no forseeable consequences prohibiting it's legalization.

Con Mission Statement - To prove, once and for all, that the legalization of marijuana is unaccomplishable due to side effects from the new laws, the addictive personalities within said drug's usage, and to prove that not only would it be harmful to the health of users that would get "hooked", but also that it's legalization would hinder normal progress in the United States [or, again, insert name of Country/Province], be it civilian or governmental, using sound and concrete information.

Of course, as always, this is just my little interpitation of the sides' views... BeeKay, you're the main man, you set the tone if what I wrote above doesn't fly.

njuice42
icq 957255

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 06-11-2002).]

damnit, then im pro for drugs in that perspective, let me say "I THINK DRUGS SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL" thats the side I am on


___________________
tri-eye

Bump
Bump
Bump



___________________
tri-eye

i personally would prefer to stick with the drugs debate as a starter, religeon in some form or another has been discussed quite heavily here already recently, a valid subject for may be the next debate

Bump


___________________
tri-eye

Relax InSiDeR. Things will get started soon enough. I'll kick off a debate thread this weekend based on responses so far. That all right with y'all? I will be working a night shift on Sunday, which is always real slow, so I will get it all together then.


Cell Number: 494

aarrgghh, you never answered mine and bug's question about the drugs, PLEASE tell me what side I am on.