|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 1, 2005 22:32:52 GMT -5
In all of the debates, the rules will be posted at the beginning along with the moderators. Some debates will include everybody, some will only include a few people. If you are unsure if a debate topic is OK, PM a staff member (Vladik, protonpower89, or me).
I bet bcherry will have a lot to say in the debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 1, 2005 22:36:31 GMT -5
good one
|
|
|
|
Post by bcherry on Apr 2, 2005 1:18:49 GMT -5
This is really relating to the first debate, but I obviously can't post there. A debate would (IMO) be more meaningful if it were structured. What this means is that the person who starts begins with an opening statement, perhaps a paragraph or two. Then the challenger gets to do the cross-examination period, where he asks questions of his opponent in regards to the opening statement, and answers to previous questions. When he is done with questions, he must give his rebuttal statement, another one to three paragraphs of rebuttal. Then we move to more cross examination, and then into a series of small (few sentence) statements or questions, one at a time from each, for the remainder of the debate, to work out the details after the case has been presented. At the end, each contestant is given one final post as a closing statement, with the affirmative (person who went first in this structure) going first, and the negative second. I feel this would provide more interesting structure, while improving real debating skills for each contestant.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 2, 2005 9:00:33 GMT -5
Sure! Do YOU want to help run debates even thought you aren't part of the staff?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 2, 2005 9:14:47 GMT -5
you could be the moderator for our debates!
|
|
|
|
Post by bcherry on Apr 2, 2005 14:28:22 GMT -5
uh, ok i guess... it's not really very hard to moderate in a setting like this, as opposed to a real verbal debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 2, 2005 16:25:02 GMT -5
exactly
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladik on Apr 4, 2005 17:46:14 GMT -5
So who agrees to let bcherry be the moderator of the debate forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 4, 2005 17:54:06 GMT -5
not ALL debates! I'm saying we'll alternate between me and bfr or bcherry (debate forum was my idea ;D) an Vladik if you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladik on Apr 4, 2005 18:02:19 GMT -5
What you meant by "moderator" was not clear. You should call it supervisor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 4, 2005 19:05:38 GMT -5
no, the supervisor of all debates are me and/or bfr. BCherry moderates a few debates, and so do you, Vladik.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcherry on Apr 4, 2005 19:16:56 GMT -5
what are the moderators supposed to do? Chime in and say "Ding Ding, time's up!", or call out "bfr, that was uncalled for! You need to walk up to proton and say you're sorry." How about we try a debate structured on questions, where the moderator picks a topic both debaters can agree to, then asks a question of one of them, who provides one post in answer, then it goes to the opponent to provide one post of response, then the original guy gets one more short post of response and then it's time for a new question on the same topic, as in Presidential Debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 4, 2005 19:56:27 GMT -5
I guess....  |
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 6, 2005 15:20:01 GMT -5
that's what i'm saying  |
|
|
|
Post by Vladik on Apr 6, 2005 16:07:56 GMT -5
Then it should be called "Watcher" or whatever...
|
|
|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 6, 2005 19:37:09 GMT -5
How about: Supervisor |
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 7, 2005 18:12:25 GMT -5
*sighs* fine... ;D
|
|
