GTP Mass-Debating Contest Thread!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danny
  • 337 comments
  • 16,689 views
This sounds cool.

When do things get rolling? Do we make our own teams? What's the format?

1) Soon.[/enigma]
2) Most likely.
3)
Okay, so as I understand now, the following happens.

Teams are formed

First Round, Team A vs. Team B

A topic is given, team A are arguing for one point, Team B are arguing against the same point.

Team A is given x amount of questions to ask Team B, then the roles are reversed.

The round is over, and the appointed judges cast their votes on who should win with reasons in the thread.

The winning team advance to face the winner of another round.

This continues until we have one team- the winners

The winners are invited to Mars' house for tea and crumpets.



Okay for everyone? Please say if something should be amended.

But the more this interest check continues, the more complicated it seems to be getting, and the chances of a royal-muckup are increased, not least because I have the stupid.:dunce:

Is a thread-per-round going to clog GTP up?
 
Sorry, should've read through the thread. :dunce:

How about of list of currently interested members in the first post so we can see who we'd like to team up with?
 
This sounds cool.

When do things get rolling? Do we make our own teams? What's the format?

These are issues we've not come across yet - perhaps we can palm them off on someone else?
 
so who wants to be on a team with me!?

*tumbleweed rolls by*
 
How about of list of currently interested members in the first post so we can see who we'd like to team up with?
If we're sorting ourselves out team wise then this is a good idea.

How many teams will their be and how many people per team?
 
Honestly, it's the same as the Opinions forum. Just a little more organized.

I'm actually rather excited by the idea. When's the first test run?

Also, I wouldn't mind being a Judge if needed.

EDIT: How many people on a team? I didn't see it in the thread.
 
I've put an entrant list on the first post as requested, however I was unsure if Radicool02, GTRacer4 and daan were wanting in or not.

Honestly, it's the same as the Opinions forum. Just a little more organized.

I'm actually rather excited by the idea. When's the first test run?

Also, I wouldn't mind being a Judge if needed.

First Point- We need judges now, if anyone wants to take on the role. I'll add a judges list to the first post too.

Second Point- Where should the threads go? Rumble Strip? Opinions?

EDIT: How many people on a team? I didn't see it in the thread.

Three. Final 200 word arguements would be a joint effort between the whole team.
 
Second Point- Where should the threads go? Rumble Strip? Opinions?

Good question. I'm thinking opinions forum because that's what it is and the only people that need to see it will know where to go.

But the rumble strip will certainly give it more exposure.

I'm going with Opinions forum :)

EDIT: I'm sure Danoff is interested. ;)
 
I don't really want to take part--I'm just a spectator waiting for the punches to start :).
 
Maybe we should draw names out of a hat for teams to be fair?

That could be arranged.

I'm wondering if teams of four might be more productive...
 
Hi, just found the thread, and I would like to join, I really like to argue about anything! :grumpy:
 
I may or may not participate. It depends on the time given for each side. I might not be able to research and formulate arguments if there will only be a few hours to do so, even a few days. So I suggest that topics be established as far in advance as possible. I also have never heard of a debate format where opponents ask questions of one another. I'm concerned with it since it could be used to compel answering irrelevant points, or be like the infamous "when did you stop beating your wife" question and either force a complicated anwer or have to be avoided. Avoiding questions might effect points. Rules need to be clear. Of course, in debate, asking questions may be part of the strategy, usually to show an opponent doesn't have an answer, but I think they should be in rebuttals. Also, I think extending the length from 200 words wouldn't hurt. 500 would be better to me, but a bit less is ok. Also, quotes from an opponent should not count unless they are with in the argument itself, as in embedded in a sentence therein. If it's part of a bulletin list, or a section being addressed, then I wouldn't count it. Finally, it should be 200+ words per point addressed.
 
You guys do realise that whichever team has Famine is guaranteed to win, don't you? :p
 
I wouldn't be so sure, have you seen members like Duke and danoff in their stride, they can certainly hold thier own. As great at facts and at proving people wrong Famine is, I wouldn't say he's the most likely to convince me of changing my opinion on a matter where neither view is actually wrong. He's one of the best yes, but I'd be more worried about coming up against danoff to be honest.
 
Good point there, L4S, danoff is certainly right up there with Famine, but I can't particulary say I've seen Duke right in his stride.

Boy, will this be good to watch.
 
Oh, so that's a judges list in the first post. Isn't there suppose to be partiality? How can I judge and debate at the same time?
 
Oh, so that's a judges list in the first post. Isn't there suppose to be partiality? How can I judge and debate at the same time?

No, it's a list of people that want to participate. :)

I'm sure ultrabeat will add your name to the list soon.
 
Duke and danoff have managed to change my opinion on a couple of things in the past (well, really one thing, but with underlying repercussions on another) - so I wouldn't be too quick to plonk me onto a pedestal...
 
What a great idea! I love to sit back an enjoy seeing other people Mass-Debate with a bunch of other Mass-Debaters.

I'll sit this one out. It'll be fun to see how this goes down.
 

Latest Posts

Back