Ms. Vici, here's a massive text wall from yours truly that should answer many of your questions. As for conversations between judges or team mates... that's what PMs are for.
I think structure is important. Real debates are heavily structured and having a little bit of that will make it easier on everyone in the long one. It'll keep all the arguments in one place and setting time limits will keep things from slowing to a crawl. Okay here's a rough idea of what I'm talking about.
I recommend that each team set up a private message board with which they can exchange ideas, present their arguments to one another, review each other's sources, etc... you know, do things that can only strengthen the overall argument before the actual debate.
Each team presents their opinions seperately. The pros with the pros and the cons with the cons. That way it will be easier to get a grasp of the overall argument that each team is making. This should be done in a timely matter. One group will present their side first followed by the perspective of the other. It'll be the judge's decision to decide what a "timely matter" means. But generally it means that it looks like everyone that's going to post has posted. When that happens the judge will post it in the thread and it should look like this:
[QUOTE="DaJudge"]
The Opening Statements of Team 1 have been made. Any further edits or statements will be disregarded. Team 2 may now present their argument.
Chet_Jones
It's up to the judge to decide when it's time to move on in the debate, but no arguing when they do, the judge's decisions are final and if you missed your point then you missed your point. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else, and too bad if your argument is weaker because you didn't post, should have been quicker to the draw. It is also a good idea for the judge to send PMs notifying people of when it's time to move on in the debate.
You start with your "Opening Statement"- here you'll establish your side of the argument and present the major points of said argument. For example, I saw death penalty being tossed around as an idea. Well let's say you got yourself a three man team. A smart way to approach it would be to divide up the work into separate perspectives; ex- for death penalty one may choose to look at the social, moral, or economic repercussions of the death penalty. You DO NOT start picking apart the other side's arguement, (even if your team goes second) your job is to establish your own. This brings us to...
"First Rebuttals"- this is where you pick apart the other sides argument. Your job here is to find inconsistencies among the arguments, contradictions within the arguments themselves, and to expose a lack of understanding of the subject among members of the opposing group. Be sure that you can support your argument, either through cited quotes or linking toweb pages that you feel are relevant. But don't abuse it. Ex. of abuse:
This right here says all I need to say.
Chet_Jones
Or
[QUOTE="Chet_Jones"]I like pieEvil_Chet_Jones
So???
In short, don't be lazy, use evidence to support your argument, but ultimately you're the one that has to make the point. Not everyone will reach the same conclusion you did when you looked at or read something. And please be sure that a web-page is both relevant and reputable before linking to it. Bear in mind that you're attacking the ARGUMENT of a person not the person themselves. This should go without saying but keep it in the thread and on topic, calling someone a n00b or saying they just got pwned isn't professional.
This brings us to the "Second Rebuttals"- Your job here is to defend your position, reestablish your argument/credibility, elaborate further on your message, and expose weaknesses in the other team's rebuttals. Handle it much the same way you handled the first rebuttals.
And thus we're brought to the "Closing Statements" section of our debate. Basically this is the last opportunity one has to squeeze out any hidden knowledge and to exploit any further weaknesses of the other team.
Then comes the judge's decision and verdict.
And congrats you just had a debate, cyber high-five.
Log in to comment