| 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 | ||
| 788611 | 2009-07-03 22:42:00 | This thread is for anyone to comment or discuss the debate going on in this thread: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz A poll will be opened at the conclusion of the debate for everyone to vote on. Remember: normal PF1 rules and etiquette applies. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 788612 | 2009-07-03 23:09:00 | This will be great fun. We'll be able to see who is the most accomplished "master debater".... :D | johcar (6283) | ||
| 788613 | 2009-07-03 23:25:00 | I'm glad I didn't enter. I know absolutely nothing about the topic. :p | pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 788614 | 2009-07-03 23:31:00 | I'm glad I didn't enter. I know absolutely nothing about the topic. :p Hmm... I picked the topic on the basis that it has had some media coverage in the last 6 months. Out of the 3 candidate topics I had, one other has had some recent media coverage (falling into both the youth, and drugs/crime categories), and another which is a sports topic. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 788615 | 2009-07-03 23:54:00 | I've been trying to locate an example of a good quality debate for our participants to learn from. Although I haven't watched the whole thing, this video seems promising: video.google.com Note that in this style of debating there are "points of information" - you may hear and see speakers stand up to offer points of information to the speaker on the floor. They are a bit more like a formal way of doing interjections - teams can offer points of information between the first and seventh minute of speeches (within an 8 minute speech), but it is ultimately up to the speaker on the floor to accept or decline them. This will not be relevant for us here. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 788616 | 2009-07-04 00:05:00 | I will be following this topic closely it promises to be very interesting :cool: | gary67 (56) | ||
| 788617 | 2009-07-04 04:37:00 | Same here. I've just subscribed to both threads. Is it just me, or does this seem a bit like clash of the titans; the unstoppable force and the immovable object? |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 788618 | 2009-07-04 04:50:00 | I'm very sorry but I told you: I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid! :cool: | Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 788619 | 2009-07-04 05:05:00 | I'm very sorry but I told you: I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid! :cool: Well put - from a professional arguer. ;) |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 788620 | 2009-07-04 05:26:00 | Rule clarification request from the affirmative team: ------------------------------------------------- Can you clarify the rules around defining the moot please? In debates I've done in the past, the first affirmative speaker defines it and the negative team has to follow this definition (unless they want to challenge the definition, which doesn't generally work unless it was very badly defined in the first place). I assume we're following the same process here? Yes you are right. Unless the affirmative team takes a completely unreasonable definition of the topic, it is expected that the negative team will argue on those terms. It is best to avoid "definition debates" as it distracts from the real issues. Note: there is no need to cite dictionaries or anything like that - simply explain in plain english what you think the debate is about. However, be aware that the negative team may not accept your definition of key terms in the topic - for example if you define "military-run" as specifically being run by the Iranian military, then they could legitimately challenge you on the basis that you are not arguing in the "spirit" of the motion. Likewise, they may also choose to extend your definition if they believe that you have unfairly restricted it in a way that biases the moot towards your team. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||