| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 101167 | 2009-07-03 22:42:00 | DEBATE: Commentary/Discussion on the Inaugural PressF1 Great Debate | somebody (208) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 788661 | 2009-07-18 02:56:00 | Well - that was a good debate. I was hoping to see more substantive material from the affirmative team, but considering it was probably a first-time taking part in a formal debate for most participants, it was a great effort all round. | somebody (208) | ||
| 788662 | 2009-07-18 05:39:00 | Thanks for the debate. Pleased to see that participants in the debate will not be able to vote as the negative team will be one vote behind to start with. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 788663 | 2009-07-18 05:44:00 | Thanks for the debate. Pleased to see that participants in the debate will not be able to vote as the negative team will be one vote behind to start with. Yup - that was the reasoning behind that decision. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 788664 | 2009-07-18 05:50:00 | Thanks for the debate. Pleased to see that participants in the debate will not be able to vote as the negative team will be one vote behind to start with.The poll has been added to the "DEBATE: The Inaugural PressF1 Great Debate" thread and will stay open for 7 days. The votes are private but I can check to confirm none of the debating team members voted. Get voting folks. :punk |
Jen (38) | ||
| 788665 | 2009-07-18 07:21:00 | /me gets a coin | Renmoo (66) | ||
| 788666 | 2009-07-20 07:38:00 | Guys.... are you voting objectively? I have to admit I'm stunned at the results so far, I thought the negative team did a much better job than the votes would indicate! | Erayd (23) | ||
| 788667 | 2009-07-20 07:51:00 | I'm not voting in the poll (as I was supposed to be "neutral" throughout the debate), but I must say that I'm very surprised at the votes so far. To me, the debate was clearly won by the negative. Sweep summed it up nicely - (paraphrasing) 'the affirmative team has not provided one example of someone who has benefited from bootcamps'. The onus was on the affirmative team to do 3 things. 1) prove that boot camps are necessary - something both teams agreed on 2) prove that boot camps would work - something they didn't do, apart from saying that in theory it will do x, y and z. This involves providing examples - I was expecting them to cite the boot camp run in Manukau by Steve Boxer (www.nzherald.co.nz). 3) prove that boot camps would not have the negative implications the negative team raised, such as generating further resentment of authority etc. - something which was never properly acknowledged The whole argument of whether you put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, or focus on preventative measures was really a non-issue. It seems that the lack of substantive points from the affirmative gave the negative very little to argue on, therefore they had to "pad" out their posts with several alternative proposals. For a "change of status quo" debate like this one, it is the responsibility of the affirmative team to provide more arguments, examples and so on - you don't change the status quo unless there's a good reason. After Erayd's post, there was very little (if any) new substantive argument from the affirmative. Just my two cents... |
somebody (208) | ||
| 788668 | 2009-07-20 07:59:00 | People may just be voting on whose suggestions sounded better rather than the technical side of each teams debating skills. I know I did. :o |
Jen (38) | ||
| 788669 | 2009-07-20 08:01:00 | People may just be voting on whose suggestions sounded better rather than the technical side of each teams debating skills. I know I did. :o Fair enough. My theory is that people are voting for the affirmative because Erayd was on the team. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 788670 | 2009-07-20 08:02:00 | I'm not voting in the poll (as I was supposed to be "neutral" throughout the debate), but I must say that I'm very surprised at the votes so far. To me, the debate was clearly won by the negative. Sweep summed it up nicely - (paraphrasing) 'the affirmative team has not provided one example of someone who has benefited from bootcamps'. The onus was on the affirmative team to do 3 things. 1) prove that boot camps are necessary - something both teams agreed on 2) prove that boot camps would work - something they didn't do, apart from saying that in theory it will do x, y and z. This involves providing examples - I was expecting them to cite the boot camp run in Manukau by Steve Boxer (www.nzherald.co.nz). 3) prove that boot camps would not have the negative implications the negative team raised, such as generating further resentment of authority etc. - something which was never properly acknowledged The whole argument of whether you put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, or focus on preventative measures was really a non-issue. It seems that the lack of substantive points from the affirmative gave the negative very little to argue on, therefore they had to "pad" out their posts with several alternative proposals. For a "change of status quo" debate like this one, it is the responsibility of the affirmative team to provide more arguments, examples and so on - you don't change the status quo unless there's a good reason. After Erayd's post, there was very little (if any) new substantive argument from the affirmative. Just my two cents... ^ x2 - agree completely :D. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||