-->
@skittlez09
Well that's a shame, too bad. But yeah I agree this tournament is going to be the most interesting thing the site has done for a while. Will be even more interesting to do whenever RM returns.
DebateArt Debate Tournament
Posts
Read-only
Total:
112
Is it rated?
-->
@TNBinc
Yes and no, based on preference by the instigator.
Debaters:
1. Intelligence_06 (yes you are good)
2. SpeedRace
3. SupaDuz
4. MisterChris
5. Seldiora
6. That1User
7. Lemming
8.
9.
10.
Judges:
1. Ragnar
2.
Proctors:
1. BearMan
-->
@BearMan
I will get back into debating as well.
/in
Debaters:
1. Intelligence_06 (yes you are good)
2. SpeedRace
3. SupaDuz
4. MisterChris
5. Seldiora
6. That1User
7. Lemming
8. Crocodile
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Judges:
1. Ragnar
2.
Proctors:
1. BearMan
(realized 16 was better)
I suggest make the default option non-rated. In this place people won't be unfair. If I get paired with Seldiora then I will lose more points than I would win.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Okay
I’ll offer to judge. If there ends up being a run on judges I might participate, but given that Ragnar is the only judge, I can’t have him feeling too lonely.
Debaters:
1. Intelligence_06 (yes you are good)
2. SpeedRace
3. SupaDuz
4. MisterChris
5. Seldiora
6. That1User
7. Lemming
8. Crocodile
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Judges:
1. Ragnar
2. WhiteFlame
Proctors:
1. BearMan
(realized 16 was better)
change it back to ten there is hardly 16 active decent debaters
-->
@BearMan
The R in Speedrace isn't capitalized lol
Debaters:
1. Intelligence_06 (yes you are good)
2. Speedrace
3. SupaDudz
4. MisterChris
5. seldiora
6. That1User
7. Lemming
8. Crocodile
9.
10.
Judges:
1. Ragnar
2. WhiteFlame
Proctors:
1. BearMan
Why only 10?
There are barely any active decent debaters like Croc said. Even if there are more, most won't accept. I will expand the roster if needed, but right now 10 isn't even filled.
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
@shadow_712
@TNBinc
@vector
Join
-->
@BearMan
What will the topics contested? I cannot contest localized topics about USA. If the topics will be international in scope, I can participate. I am not from USA as you all might know.
-->
@shadow_712
Some of the topics will be in the United States, and others will be international. They are taken from the NSDA.
-->
@BearMan
@Intelligence_06
Sorry, disagree with Intel on this one. I think it should be rated. This tests our ability and really shows where we stand, why wouldn't it be rated?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You should get in on this
-->
@David
You should get involved
-->
@BearMan
I can fight on your turf I suppose. I will participate.
Debaters:
1. Intelligence_06
2. Speedrace
3. SupaDudz
4. MisterChris
5. seldiora
6. That1User
7. Lemming
8. Crocodile
9.Nikunj_sanghai
10.
Judges:
1. Ragnar
2. WhiteFlame
Proctors:
1. BearMan
-->
@MisterChris
It's completely based on the instigator's preference. It really doesn't effect anything in the tournament.
-->
@BearMan
Small suggestion:
Even with one judge assigned to grade a debate, the other judge and yourself should also be listed in the setup (just as a precaution). That or have that judge's ruling decide things for the tournament, but allow technically open voting.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
-->
@Speedrace
@MisterChris
@Crocodile
@Intelligence_06
Looks like I've been nominated to judge your debates.
I should probably write my own, but a really good judging paradigm to review is Ram's:
Judging Paradigm:I make it my goal to vote on 100% of debates.Conduct: repeated petulance, name-calling, dishonesty, or forfeits will garner a deduction.S&G: Penalization for S&G bad enough that it impedes my understanding of your argument - minor typos are okay, but noticeable errors that prevent the argument scanning will garner deduction.Sources: I judge sources based on how they improve the warrant for core claims. For me to award points, your sources must firmly support a key claim that is not separately warranted. Conversely you will lose source points if you don’t check your sources and they end up harming your warrant. Backing up key issues of your argument is a skill - and I view sources - and their 2 points - as more than simply selecting news articles over blog posts. One perfect source can be so impressive and well used it can win or lose this category.Arguments: Merit and warrant win over technicalities and NSDA approved terminology. This means I am more interested in whether your argument is better, rather than whether you’ve formatted, structured or replies in the right way using formal language.I am TR to a point - in that while I will not make an argument if you or your opponent doesn’t make it - I will also not give your position warrant that you do not give it yourself. This means if an argument is bad but unaddressed, I will still treat it as bad. Saying that, pure TR will award the win to the last person to post a round, thus I’ll use general rules of intuition, logic and knowledge but will not use any preconceptions on the debate resolution or the arguments you use.If an argument is obviously bad, it will be treated as such - and bad arguments will only win if your opponent is worse.My rulings are normally made on point by point wins and losses - then weighting based on argument strength. I give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the side I am interpreting: eg I will assess a dropped argument as dropped only if it is clearly not covered - if other arguments or rebuttals overlap I will not consider the argument dropped as I can’t weigh based on my interpreted intent.
Understand that I'm a business student (ok, graduated, but still job hunting...). So my training is very much to appreciate brevity (if you can expand a single sentence to fill those 30,000 words, it is probably better off as just a sentence).
I do like headings I can easy follow between rounds, as well as structure to how they're presented. I wrote that handy guide (does not need to be followed, but if it doubt on things, it's a good way to do things). I should note that if changing out your contentions, give the new ones their own numbers.
Guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
And seeing it in action: me debating a bigot (you could just read my R1 preamble and my final round, and know everything of consequence).
I really don't care for excessive nitpicking and semantics. My eyes gloss over when that stuff becomes the focus of the debate, instead of the core ideas.
-->
@Barney
k
-->
@Barney
Thanks!