|
Post by lewissaffin on Jul 11, 2012 17:59:43 GMT
Hey, ladies and gents Post your suggestions for motions to be debated. If you could post it in the following format, then (supposing it is not ridiculous) it will be added to the short-list and either put to a poll or added to a schedule later. The format follows: "This House believes that [insert motion here]." e.g. This House believes that Adolf Hitler was, on balance, a genius.Potential Motions 1) ...Adolf Hitler was, on balance, a genius. 2) ...the 'War on Terror' is not worth the civilian casualties. 3) ...the senses are reason enough for the existence of God. 4) ...abortion should be banned. 5) ...the State should outlaw religion. 6) ...the United Nations should involve itself violently in Syria. 7) ...the Libyan Revolution was caused by the UK/the USA. 8) ...the benefits of private healthcare outweigh those of public healthcare. 9) ...freedom of expression is not essential in a modern democracy. 10) ...gay adoption should be outlawed. 11) ...the death penalty should be applied everywhere. 12) ...incest should be legalised. 13) ...women are stronger than men. 14) ...9/11 was an 'inside job'. 15) ...grass is green. 16) ...if a woman is having trouble while giving birth and the husband is given a choice between saving her or the baby, the wife should be saved. 17) ...Christianity is a waste of time. I shall outline the rules and start a sign-up thread later
|
|
|
Post by Nabeel on Jul 11, 2012 18:50:05 GMT
Erm a fairly topical recent one would be on the war on terror. So is the war on terror worth all the innocent civilians being killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. In the format it could be something like This House believes that the war on terror is not worth the civilian causalities. Although change it if you want as I don't know how best to sum it up.
|
|
Guilha
Member
Just DXXin' and s**t.
Posts: 239
|
Post by Guilha on Jul 11, 2012 19:06:36 GMT
no offense but I think this should be handed differently. I think is seeming like a gfx battleground, in a way , tbh, no offense, Lewis. in my opinion, people should post the thread with the title of the debate (eg: "Was Hitler a genius?") . In the first post they'd say which side they're defending and then wait for someone who wants to take the other side. Then the creator of the thread posts their argument. Following, the opponent posts their counter-argument. Then the creator posts one more argument. The opponent another. Then again the creator and finally the opponent. Total of 3 for each should be enough. With turns, it should look clean. Maybe set up a restriction of minimum 1 hour before the other replies when 1 argument is posted so the other person has the chance to edit their post and such. When all the 6 arguments are posted, a judge or maybe even 3 are assigned (either at the beginning of the thread, or they can be the board's Mods) to declare the winner of the debate. Perhaps also set up a maximum character count for each argument (500 words seems reasonable) that's how i'd do the thing. just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by lewissaffin on Jul 11, 2012 19:14:00 GMT
That is all fair enough and I like some of the ideas you have set out there.
The method I had in mind was to form the debate in a regimented structure:
1) The thread is created by the adjudicator/referee. 2) The person arguing FOR the motion has 1000 words to outline his/her argument. 3) The person arguing AGAINST the motion replies in kind. 4) Observers throw out questions, which are collated and offered to the two debaters by the adjudicator/referee. 5) The person arguing FOR the motion has 500 words to answer the questions and 200 more words to conclude his/her argument. 6) The person arguing AGAINST the motion has exactly the same afterwards. 7) The winner is decided by poll/popular consent according to who had the more 'persuasive' argument.
I was planning on having moderators keep the thread tidy by only allowing the debaters to post anything but questions in the middle.
---
Your plan is pretty good too but a back-and-forth argument could lurch off-topic/go off at a tangent very easily and I would not want that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. McMahon on Jul 11, 2012 20:40:11 GMT
Sorry to butt in, just wanted to confirm: At this stage, people who want to take part can discuss potential topics and the procedure for doing this. Once people are in general agreement, myself and Assassin will confirm that we're happy for things to go ahead, and will monitor the board - but yes, I think individual threads being created by the person who will be adjudicating them isn't a bad idea. Keep the ideas coming, and once I've got a better idea of what this is about we can get cracking
|
|
|
Post by Archbishop of Banterbury on Jul 11, 2012 22:32:06 GMT
"This House believes that the senses are reason enough for the existence of God."
f**k YEAH PHILOSOPHY
|
|
|
Post by Assman on Jul 12, 2012 10:05:45 GMT
Those for or against abortion is another topic that could be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Archbishop of Banterbury on Jul 12, 2012 11:47:14 GMT
Not a fan of the word count suggestion, especially one so lsow as 500 words.
|
|
|
Post by lewissaffin on Jul 12, 2012 16:10:52 GMT
That is a great effort so far, guys - I suggest we keep going until we have about 10.
|
|
Guilha
Member
Just DXXin' and s**t.
Posts: 239
|
Post by Guilha on Jul 12, 2012 16:20:26 GMT
some suggestions:
- Should gay adoption be allowed? - Should the death penalty be legal everywhere? - Should incest be or not be illegal? - Who is the strongest sex: man or woman?
|
|
|
Post by Nabeel on Jul 12, 2012 16:22:17 GMT
Haha for a forum that's meant to be suitable for 13 year olds, the topic on incest may be a bit too far mate
|
|
Guilha
Member
Just DXXin' and s**t.
Posts: 239
|
Post by Guilha on Jul 12, 2012 16:23:15 GMT
Haha for a forum that's meant to be suitable for 13 year olds, the topic on incest may be a bit too far mate haha, maybe well, that's up to whoever's in charge, although i dont think discussing abortion is any less softer lol
|
|
|
Post by Nabeel on Jul 12, 2012 16:25:52 GMT
Well in schools or at least here in the UK you start studying+ discussing abortion in like year 7+8 which is 12/13 so I wouldn't say so. Incest isn't really a topic covered in school
|
|
Ayen
Member
Posts: 412
|
Post by Ayen on Jul 12, 2012 16:28:28 GMT
Private vs. Public Healthcare Censorship vs. Expression
|
|
Guilha
Member
Just DXXin' and s**t.
Posts: 239
|
Post by Guilha on Jul 12, 2012 16:29:49 GMT
Well in schools or at least here in the UK you start studying+ discussing abortion in like year 7+8 which is 12/13 so I wouldn't say so. Incest isn't really a topic covered in school I'm guessing you dont discuss it (we dont here too) 'cause it's still a taboo subject, just like pedophilia and such
|
|