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
Last Edit: Jul 14, 2012 12:09:27 GMT by lewissaffin
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 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.
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
kenny wallace: you'll have to catch me in my pick up truck first YEEHAW
Nov 11, 2016 19:59:14 GMT
assassin b: U A FOOL
Nov 23, 2016 0:42:12 GMT
cody lawrence: finally....
Nov 25, 2016 16:53:22 GMT
cody lawrence: FINALLY.....................
Nov 25, 2016 16:53:29 GMT
cody lawrence: FINALLY THE CODY HAS COME BACK TO D.............X..............X.... WHICH MEANS FINALLY THE COY HAS COME BACK.......... HOOOOOOOOOOOOOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Nov 25, 2016 16:53:54 GMT
-_-: Wow, that was funny, "f**k her in my rollie."
Nov 26, 2016 4:55:29 GMT
Nov 29, 2016 4:56:16 GMT
21 savage: chad relax its a good thing
Nov 29, 2016 22:24:31 GMT
21 savage: i always looked up to you, 21
Nov 29, 2016 22:24:37 GMT
21 savage: even though you were never quite on my level, were you? 21
Nov 29, 2016 22:24:46 GMT
21 savage: I AM YOUR RULER
Nov 29, 2016 22:24:55 GMT
sldr: STONE COLD STUNNER TO CHAD "KODAK BLACK" JENNINGS
Feb 1, 2017 17:36:38 GMT
Shad Moss: Guys I'm alive. Find me @jamesmag101 on twitter. I miss my ol' buddies Chad Jennings, DJ Hipp Kwame Miles... The whole damn crew... Steve Storme. Kenny Wallace.
Feb 18, 2017 9:03:07 GMT
21: dude nobody cares
Mar 13, 2017 19:08:45 GMT
21: bitch ass
Apr 20, 2017 19:56:49 GMT
-_-: Relax? That I am, I was acknowledging what was posted was funny.
May 13, 2017 10:02:21 GMT
-_-: You looked up to me, yet I was never quite on your level? That's just absurd. XD
May 13, 2017 10:06:29 GMT
-_-: You're my ruler? So, you're an instrument I use to measure, example being, your absurdness. XD
May 13, 2017 10:11:41 GMT