|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Take note that I am little drunk at the moment (it's Friday and thus free beer day at work)
Pick three EvC members to join yourself (yes you have to include yourself) in your EvC debate dream team. Who would you choose and why? You can take the copout Gridiron approach and choose different teams for different specialisms if you must. Biology topics, physics topics, philosophical topics etc. Or take the harder challenge of going for the "soccer" based approach of having one team on the field for the entire match each with individual specialisms/strengths/weaknesses. I am gonna take the soccer approach. My EvC dream debate team would be Oni, Mod and Rrhain plus my obligatory self. Why? Me - Coz I have to choose myself. Oni - Coz he funny and willing to try and get the other persons point of view even whilst disagreeing with it. Mod - Breadth of knowledge, philosophical underpinnings specialist and just generally good. Rrhain coz I would rather have his exacting lawyer like dexterity on my side than against me. With that team I reckon we could take on almost any other debate team EvC could proffer on almost any but the most absolute specialist of subjects. Who would you choose and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: Straggler writes: Take note that I am little drunk at the moment (it's Friday and thus free beer day at work) What a country! Well actually free beer Friday is an Aussie tradition (it's an Aussie company) but one that we Brits are happy to partake in.
X writes: Me too. Cheers and hic! then.
X writes: Well, for me, the Big Problem is getting around having to pick me. You gotta be in your own team!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Is a four-person team a debate standard? I don't know much about the organized sport of debate. As a teacher I ran an inter-school debate event once. The topic of debate was decided well beforehand and the position of each team (for or against the motion) was also decided before the debate. Interestingly it had nothing to do with the actual views of the participants who were expected to make the case for their allocated position whether they personally agreed with it or not. In the one I was involved in each team had 4 members with an opening argument made by each and then 3 responses each. Something like that. It was a long time ago.
Crash writes: Anyway, cleaving to the established "four person team that you have to be on yourself" protocol I would take Modulous, Schraf, and Dan Carroll. Interesting choices. Dan Carroll isn't someone I am very familiar with. I will check out some historical postings. If I could select an opposition team for my chosen team (name of team - "Gimps With Attitude") to face then I think I would pick yourself, Dr A, Bluegenes and Bluejay. Sparks might fly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: The next question would be whether we set up a Team Great Debate and what the topic would be If people are interested we could actually try and do this.
X writes: Should Straggler's point about taking opposite sides on an issue be embraced? If you wanted it to be like a formal team debate then that would be the case I think. But we can make up our own rules here. Whether we will ever be able to agree on an appropriate topic and which team gets to pick Mod seem to be the main points of contention.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This is the sort of organised format I guess I was thinking of: Link
Link writes: Australasia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That", for example, "That cats are better than dogs," or "This House", for example, "This House would establish a world government." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the participants and their audiences. Each team has three members, each of whom is named according to their team and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the terminology used. Each of the speakers' positions is based around a specific role, the third speaker for example has the opportunity to make a rebuttal towards the opposing teams argument introducing new evidence to add to their position. The last speaker is called the "Team Advisor/Captain". Using this style, the debate is finished with a closing argument by each of the first speakers from each team and new evidence may not be introduced. Each of the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to each other beginning with the Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative. Something like "The house would establish a world government" is broad enough to be potentially feasible. Maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Good choices IMHO (when jar can be arsed - which is less and less often these days).
But would you care to elaborate on your choices? Why those and not others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well I can't argue with any of that except to say that I hope jar decides to take part less superficially than he has done recently at some point in the near future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You made my chosen opponent B team
Message 8 It was either you or Ringo. You got in as the token theist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Percy writes: No, what I said was that creationists don't even agree on the basics, like the age of the Earth, and that is because they don't agree on any theory within whose framework they can interpret the evidence. To be fair this is also true of theistic-pro-science lobby. People like Catholic Scientist, Bluejay and RAZD. They are not creationists. They are (as far as I can work out) "falsificationists". But they have all disputed the actual age of the Earth and the method for making such a conclusion. In my experience CS and Bluejay will agree that the empirical evidence points towards an Earth that is billions of years old but refuse to conclude that this is a superior conclusion in terms of veracity to unfalsifiables such as omphalism. RAZD's position is more confused but the following is the best summation I could find
Mod writes: RAZD on the age of the Earth writes: The breakpoint could be the formation of the universe (results in deism), it could be 6000 years ago (results in YEC earth, but still with flood problems) or it could be last thursday. We don't know....you could put me down as a weak "3" - weak theistic agnostic - at most. Certainly not a 2. For clarity, position 3 is, "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe". But my point is that it isn't just pure creationists who are confused about "basics" such as the age of the Earth. If anything they are just more unsophisticated and explicit about their confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well my creo-dream-team (at least in terms of fun to debate) would be:
BuzICANT Faith Nemesis Juggernaut If they could all agree on a stance that is
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Fair point. If Hyro cannot bring himself to be NemJugs again then Syamsu can take his place.
Let the madness begin....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Never someone I personally encountered to any great extent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Omni writes: Straggler: ......., Drinks. An essential quality in any debate partner. Obviously. Hic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ZD writes: Thanks for the vote of confidence, but if anyone was going to "stack the deck" consider a team with both Straggler and myself ... working together to tear down the opposition ... it would be a massacre. Was that.... No. But. Could it......? Was it? RAZ was that almost, sort of, ish nearly..... a compliment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Actually on political matters I have found myself on the same side as RAZD plenty of times.
Cest la vie.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024