Debating

[TMA_1]

Well I had to go to a debate tournament a few days ago, that was why I was gone for two days. It is a requirement for class because I signed up for debate class. I didnt really want to but it was an elective that would really help.

So... we drove down to Gig harbor, which is near the Tacoma Seattle area. The debate tournament was large and good grief it was annoying.

about 85 percent of the people there were extreme liberals. I am not talking moderate or progressive liberals, I am talking radicals.

and the remaining 10 percent or so were die hard conservatives. In fact when I was presenting my neg case, I mentioned Gun crimes in there and one of those judges who was concervative actually argued with me not to put in the part where there is a rise in gun crimes because he has 6 guns!

The liberals are bad as well, I remember arguing with one because all she would do is bash bush, granted he is easy to bash and he deserves it at times, but she was getting crude and childish. I mean it was such an extreme environment that I hated being there. there were no cool headed people.

I finally got home and talked with my debate teacher, explaining to him why I didnt like it, and why it is silly. I said that debate is a two edged sword, that on one hand kids in debate quickly learn the current events, the changes of our time, history and so on. At the same time though, they become so stuck in their own position that they debate simply to debate! These people are the kind of people who will never change, and in fact will try and convert you to what they think. What is the point in debate if you cannot prove another person a new way of thinking? Sure, one debator or debators will win over others, but neither the judges, or students, or teachers change their opinions. Why? because I talked with many of them and they still stuck with their ideals to an extreme.

The funniest thing to is when you debate, you have to present both a negative and affirmative case, for and against the same topic. The funniest thing is they can be ardent on both sides, I askedm y teacher why people here are almost sociopaths, who can lie so easily, he said it is something you have to learn in debate and laughed...

I guess there are some good points to it, but I didnt see any at this tournament. Arguing for your own benefit (like arguing to confirm your opinion, or to piss somebody off) or simply because you like to argue, just for arguments sake seems stupid to me. Maybe I am wrong but I just think there is no point in that. That may not be the idea of how people think here on fed2k, but that is how I think. I cant stand radicalism, and I cant stand people who wish for no change.

[nemafakei]

It seems like you've been to a nasty debate indeed! Most debates over here that I've seen are light-hearted, and those who are impolite, stubborn, or harrassing generally don't get very far. That isn't to say many sure conclusions are reached, but such debates are more about making people aware of more arguments for and against issues, rather than solving them. The ecxeptions being in parliaments, of course, but even then, you wonder...

[Tio_Holtzmann]

hmm....seem to have experienced the same thing. our school team were vehement arguers, but at least we argued our cases relatively logically, and if we were defeated on a point, we just tried to knock down their counter argument. unfortunately in our last debate the judges were from the same town as our opponents. we lost. even tho they totally were sarcastic about us <which is against the rules> and used silly props to wow the audience and didnt even answer our points. i smell town pride.

should have really been called "politicking" rather than "debating" cos i came away feeling you could win more on how you said things rather than what you said. there could be loadsa flaws in your points but if you said it firmly and convincingly and in some ways convolutedly, you could win.

altho that didnt work for the first team we played, we nailed them on semantics. we realised that one of their definitions could be used to knock down all their arguments. it was HILARIOUS.

[TMA_1]

hehe, good job tio!

So you would say Iwent to a bad tournament nema? I thought all of them are like the one I went to.I guess that i presuming too much, also I wish you were on my team guys, like in CX debate or something, we could wipe the floor with our opponents. :)

Also, what kind of debating did you guys do? Lincoln Dougless? Cross Examination? Extemp?

[Acriku]

Debating does not have to be oriented towards the goal of learning current events, learning both sides, or hearing the other side of it. I'm one of those who enjoy debating because of all of those things, but also because it's fun! I have a bigger-than-the-average-person-but-not-big-enough-to-cloud-my-judgement-ego, and I'm not ashamed of it. I'm surprised not many others embrace their ego. But with that ego, I like to see myself test theories, hold beliefs on trial, and make people think about what they've thought as a true premise. Make people question what they've always held as self-evident. I am not a crusader for my beliefs, I am a crusader (one of the kind ones) of freethought. If everyone believed openly and questioned everything, then I wouldn't care if they still believed in a god. Beyond opening their minds, I can do little more. And that's why I love debating.

[TMA_1]

hmmm that makes sense acriku, but I dont embrace my ego because i is an easy way to the path of a closed mind and ignorance. That is what happens to me anyway, but in all reality you really dont cloud your mind with that. Still though you seem pretty fair, cant believe I said that.lol

If that is how you debate, then I wouldnt mind debating you on tough issues. Good grief acriku! I know this might not mean much, but htis post that you made is open minded and I have gained a lot of respect for it. I guess I have been wrong in many ways. So sorry man if I have been disrespectful. dont know why I have dragged out the mean words.

Yeah it would be a pleasure debating seriously on a topic, want to do that sometime? if so come up with any issue. If you do, want to do LD style of debate? or Extemp or Expository?

[Acriku]

Heh, is this Bizarro world? ;)

I'm sorry as well for egging you on sometimes, which I have done in the past. I'd like to debate, but I've never had a formal debate since 8th grade. So, if you could tell me, or link to me, how that would be done I'd appreciate it.

[TMA_1]

sure thing man, remember though this is my first quarter of it, so beh, not too good.lol

Also, i am guessing you still know how to LD or Extemp? those are the two things I do in tournaments. I like working alone.

Here is how I would think it would work best.

This month the LD theme is "should we midigate in international conflicts?"

We can do other issues if you want, I dont care it is all fun.

So We should both make both a negatve case and an Affirmative case on the issue we wish to debate about(For example, with the Midigating of inernational conflicts, Neg would be against betting involved with international military and diplomatic affairs, while the Aff case would be about why we should get involved in international affairs, and what obligations we have to the world, that is an example of aff and neg).

Or we could do Extemp, where we both come up with a good topic and write out a summary of why or why we dont agree with the topic we chose to use. Usually the writing has to be seven minutes, but since we cant talk we will have to write out a paper that reads close enough to 7 minutes. The hard part of Extemp is this, we can only have 30 minutes of prepration.

These are the kind of debates I like and am decent at, you probably dont need any of the info I gave you on these debate styles, but just making sure you remember them

[Egeides]

I never did these kinds of formal debates. I did some debates that were organized by someone with a major in philosophy though and it wasn't a problem. Lurning how to use sophisms? Limited use... Lurning how to crash the argumentation of those who are using them? Now you're talking :D

I'd be veeeery curious to see some of these debate people, look at how they speak.

[nemafakei]

Well, the most apt style I could describe is the World Style Debating - I'm hoping (given general forum age ranges) that some of you will have heard of the World Schools' Championship (which I think is organised by the English Speaking Union).

In this, there are three speakers on each team, and a motion. The motion would probably be something in the form of "This House would talk to terrorists" (Always commencing 'This House would' (THW) or 'This House believes that' (THBT)).

There would be a proposition team, whose first speaker would commence, and speak for 9(?) minutes, of which the first and last 1½ minutes are protected from interruption. Then the first opp will speak, then back and forth: 1P 1O 2P 2O 3P 3O. Then one of the first three speakers stand to summate for each team - summation speeches are generally shorter.

Oh, and the floor may raise points at the discretion of the chair before the summation speeches, as I recall.