|
|
|
|
#1
01-20-2015
|
||||
|
||||
Debate Tournament
As you could probably tell from the title, this game has people debating against each other. Just thought I'd try this in an actual competition scenario instead of General Discussion. Basically, two people debate on a subject, general or otherwise. Here are the basic guidelines as of now.
1. Sign ups occur just as any forum game, if you are interested in joining please sign up on the thread. 2. Absolutely no flaming, trolling or general ass-hattery. Doing so will result in your disqualification. 3. Judges shall decide the outcome of each match. An odd number of judges is required, but no less than 3. 3.5. If there aren’t enough judges, participants that are not engaged in the current debate can volunteer to judge the match instead, provided they are fair in their judgement. 4. Judges will assign points, 0-10, based on how they feel the participants did at the end of the debates. 0 obviously is the lowest score and thus means that they could not get any worse, even if they tried. That means that you, should you become a judge, will probably not be giving out 0's or 10's frequently, if at all. Giving the reasons for your scores is useful, but not mandatory. 5. Judges can cut the debate short if they decide that the participants are just repeating themselves and not really getting anywhere. 6. The tournament can be set up in two forms: i) Round Robin. This is better for tournaments with fewer people involved, ideally 6 or less. Each participant will face each other once, and the winner is determined by whom has won the highest number of debates. Should two participants win the same number of debates, there shall be a final round to determine the overall winner. ii) Knockout. This is the format people usually think of with tournaments, players are set against each other and the loser is eliminated from the tournament while the winner moves onto the next round. The winner is determined by a final after all but two are eliminated. This mode is ideal for 7 or more participants. 7. Debates can also take two forms. i) On site. This is the traditional form for the tournament. One side opens with establishing their side of the argument within their post, and the other can reply as they see fit to retort the opposing view. This format will take place over the course of 3 days. If one side takes more than a day to reply without giving a reason, the match will end and move onto judging phase. If less than three exchanges have been had, then if a participant replies within the last 3 hours of the debating period the opponent will have 12 hours extra to give a final reply. ii) On Instant Messenger. If both sides and a neutral party agrees, the debate can be held on an instant messenger. For the sake of order, each side can only send their retort after their opponent has said “end post”, or 5 minutes has past since their last statement. The debate period is no more than 1 hour for this, while if a person takes more than 10 minutes to reply without due cause the debate will end. Any legitimate issues raised during the debate will hold the timer until both participants are ready. After the debate, the neutral party will copy and paste a transcript of the debate onto the site for the judging period. 8. To make sure the participants are interested in the area of discussion, the way the top is determined goes as follows: a) A coin is flipped by the Tournament host. The winner chooses the category, while the loser chooses the subcategory. E.g. Winner my choose Philosophy, while the loser chooses metaphysics. For fairness, the categories have at least one crossover topic so people may not be completely out of their field. b) The host then randomly chooses a question from that area to discuss. c) If the participants have a side they favour, they can choose which side to defend by messaging the gm. If both sides want the same side or neither side favours one particular side, the gm will decide the sides. Those are the rules and processes. The following are the list of categories and subcategories to select from: Philosophy Metaphysics Ethics Political Ideologies Religion Social relations Politics Political ideologies Political structure (eg. electoral forms, government types, etc) Contemporary Political issues Crime and Justice Economics Culture/Social issues Media Crime and Justice Rights and Discrimination Ethics Social relations (relations, relationships, community) Current events Environmentalism Economic practice Rights and discrimination International affairs Science and technology Special category: Devils advocate - the person who chooses this volunteers to try to defend the side of a typically morally reprehensible viewpoint. Surprise me - both players leave it completely up to the host to decide what the question will be about 
|
|
#2
01-20-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
SIGN UPS START NOW!
Tournament begins on Friday. Sign ups: 1. Tormented 2. Fat1fared 3. Killshot 4. Clank4prez 5. Musigal 6. Kudos 
Last edited by grimfang999; 03-12-2015 at 09:06 PM.
|
|
#5
01-20-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
I sign up.
|
|
#7
01-24-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok sign ups end.
We have 5 players, so we shall be playing in a round robin. The first game shall be: Clank4Prez vs Fat1Fared. Coin flip: Heads=clank tails=fared ... Its tails! Fared, please pick a category.
|
|
#10
01-24-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And Politics has been chosen for the category, Clank please choose which area you wish to discuss.
|
|
#11
01-25-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Crime and Justice
|
|
#12
01-25-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok then. Sorry for late reply.
The question is as follows: "The current drug laws in the UK and USA are ineffective, leading to excessive penalties for actions which only affect the person doing the drug." Can each side message me on which side they would like to defend. (I need to be faster with this or find a way to speed up the process).
|
|
#13
01-26-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
The sides have been decided.
Fared shall be acting in favour of this statement, while Clank will stand as opposition. I need two people to be judges, though i just need to know before the end of the debates. [ Im bad at this ] DEBATE START! Fared shall have the opening argument.
|
|
#15
01-26-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Debate as a whole, if that is ok.
|
|
#16
01-27-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Sorry
I have an exam this weekend - and I have to write three very long and boring reports for work and i have be in some business negotiations and... etc boring boring boring work stuff, so I am not reappear until some time next week, will that be OK (like Tuesday?)
|
|
#17
01-27-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very well. Debate postponed. Question shall remain the same so if research needs to be done feel free to do so.
Also, thinking about it, Im changing the tournament to knockout, else we would end up with too many matches. Instead it shall play as follows: a vs b c vs d e vs f losers of each: a/b faces c/d winner faces e/f winner faces other e/f Then final. Anyways... The round is Tormented vs Kudos. Tormented chooses the Category, Kudos the subject.
|
|
#21
02-03-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ugh Im deeply sorry for the delay. I was having some problems on the day then forgot.
The question is as follows: "The emphasis put upon the protection of wildlife and endangered species is excessive and the endeavour itself unworthy as a cause." Please pm me which side you would like to take.
|
|
#22
02-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Both players have chosen the same side. it shall instead be randomised.
Kudos shall be holding the for argument while tormented shall take the against. Kudos shall provide the opening argument. DEBATE START!
|
|
#23
02-08-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Opening Argument:
No matter whether you are a religious individual or of a purely scientific mind, it is a total waste of time to attempt the protection of wildlife and endangered species. Not only is it a futile cause, it is also most unnecessary. To view this issue through the lense of science, we are in a slice of history on the evolutionary timeline that is different than all other times before and all other times that will follow. At no time in the past have the highest animals on the food chain attempted to protect those beneath them; it is survival of the fittest. Can you imagine if prehistoric hunters had tried to preserve the mammoth as a species instead of using them as a resource as is their right as the top of the food chain. Humans may have died out instead! Nature has a way of balancing ecosystems with the organisms that are available. It is therefore a waste of time to try to prevent the innevitable changes that will occur in wildlife ecosystems. If one does not believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, prefering to view the world through the lense of religion, human beings are considered the rulers of the animal kingdom. While it is not good to be cruel to animals, there is no reason to ensure that each species survives infinitely. The master plan for the future has already been laid out, and there is nothing we can do to change the events to come. If a species is meant to go extinct they will, and if they are not, then they won't, and there is no use worrying over what we can't control. Therefore, it is a waste of time to try to prevent animal extinction.
|
|
#24
02-10-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
We've come a long way from having to hunt mammoths for food. There are seven billion people on this earth now, and we've explored every corner of the planet. We're more protected than ever, and continue to improve our health and intelligence. Does that mean we should ignore endangered animals in order to continue this growth? Absolutely not. We no longer live in a time where we need to kill every animal we see for warmth or food. Regardless of their worth in comparison to humans, animals still have feelings, and they feel pain and sorrow. We can take a small portion of our time and effort out to help those animals that are losing their population to extinction.
There are reasons to keep something around besides utility. Why aren't more things in nature torn down when we need more room for homes? Why aren't some old buildings blown up to bring about something that has more use? For the beauty of it. It may not have a tangible benefit, but it has a quality that many people can agree brings about more positive feelings. Beauty is important in our society, and though opinions differ on what truly is 'beauty', it's reasonable to say that there are things in this world that are worthwhile to keep around to make things look more majestic. Animals do fall into this same line of thinking. It may not seem like eagles bring daily benefits to you, but their majesty and what they've come to represent, particularly for Americans (though you could change this to any animal that represents a country in some way) is something that would be lost should preservation be removed. These animals are just as much a part of the world as any other living creature, and it's a cruel act to want to give up on them just because someone may believe it's not worth the effort. These arguments would not exist when directed towards more populous animals. If someone took down a condor or a wolf, very few would bat an eye, but to remove shelter and cast aside pets like cats and dogs, well people would be rioting in the streets. The vast majority of animals can be domesticated, but some see that as inhumane. Letting them quietly die off until no one remembers them, however, is crueler than that. Endangered wildlife is still important to this world, regardless of if someone can keep them as a faithful pet. We are here on this earth to thrive, and to preserve and remember, not to destroy. They deserve our effort.
|
|
#25
02-12-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes humanity is more populous than ever, but no we have not explored every inch of the planet. There are new and diverse creatures being discovered every day, and there are many unexplored corners of the planet where even more natural diversity awaits, particularly in the oceans!
I am not saying we need to hunt these animals for food anymore, nor that we should not appreciate the beauty of the animals that are endangered. By all means, record them for posterity, and even keep a few in captivity to inspire future generations if that is something you want to do. My argument is that it is a waste of time and resources to fight for the survival of each species that becomes endangered. According to the list of endangered species on WorldWildlife.org, most species that are endangered are subspecies (https://www.worldwildlife.org/specie...nction_status/) So even if one subspecies of turtle becomes extinct, that TYPE of animal is still perfectly abundant in the world. These time and resources could be better used to help those PEOPLE around the world who are fighting for survival. According to the WWF itself, 1 in 9 people on the planet struggles with hunger. According to nature magazine, 4 BILLION American dollars would have to be spent each year to effectively protect all the endangered species (http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...et-76-billion/) Imagine how much 4 billion dollars could help more urgent causes, like providing clean water to developing nations. in conclusion, the protection of endangered species is excessive when compared to other problems faced by today's world.
|
|
#26
02-12-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just to step in here, due to the length of time I have allowed (despite saying I wouldnt but I have allowed it) Im limiting this debate to three posts each then judging phase.
|
|
#27
02-13-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
I understand how nice that sounds. Of course people are important! We are people after all, and we want to look after our own. It's just not fair to blame the wildlife for those who are suffering. Regardless of how one feels towards these animals, they're suffering too. Sure, four billion dollars would have to spent for such an optimal purpose, but that's the thing: it's the most 100% optimal thing, and that's not always what needs to be done. Many things can happen positively on less than the maximum budget.
I won't go in depth today on what spending could potentially be cut to foster more growth (that's for another debate), but I don't think removing spending on saving endangered animals is going to solve many of the world's ills. That kind of thing involves many different countries and people working together, and it's fair to say that throwing all that money at the problem won't suddenly mend the tensions between the world. I don't want to sit here and espouse an ideal utopia where everyone can be saved and we all live happily. It's just not feasible, no matter how awful it may be. I don't believe every person can be saved, nor can every animal be saved. But it's important to strive for perfection, no matter how unattainable it is. If no one does, then current conditions will just deteriorate due to lowered expectations. It's vital that we try to save as many species as we can, even if it's not a reasonable goal. Otherwise they'd all die out, and they haven't done anything to deserve such a fate. We all share this planet, and we want to live together as peacefully as possible, not only between people and people, but people and animals too. We don't need to spend four billion dollars to save all the animals: it's a utopian ideal, but could never work in practice. However, it is possible to become more efficient at it, and pay more attention to what we're doing to their homes. Exploring the oceans is nice, but there's about equal worth in exploring space too, where there aren't any living creatures' homes to take away. Education is an important tool, and we can use it to help people understand how much these animals need us to keep their very existence alive.
|
|
#28
02-13-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
In your last argument, your main point is that the endangered species did nothing to DESERVE dying out. That they have feelings, and therefore should be treated with the same level of urgency as other problems in the world. However, you state yourself that saving as many species as we can is "not a reasonable goal"! And I think that's the truth of the matter.
I am not saying that these poor creatures deserve to die out, merely that attempting to save them is a waste of time in comparison to other endeavors. Not only could the money be used better for other causes (even if divided among multiple causes), but also that the time of those attempting to preserve, for instance, a very specific kind of rhino could use that time better to educate people (as you have stated is an admirable goal) or to support refuges or to advocate against racism and discrimination. It is these more urgent causes that make me find the emphasis upon the protection of endangered species to be excessive unworthy of pursuit.
|
|
#29
02-13-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
While I did express that saving every animal is admittedly impossible, I also spoke of striving for that utopia because of the good it can bring. In your arguments, you haven't really differentiated from the fact that using funds to protect endangered species if excessive and unworthy, which brings the impression that you would remove all funds from such endeavors. It's a rather reactionary thought to just give up on all these animals, which I've stated earlier.
We can educate people on being more conscientious and being better for the world, but why is education on helping endangered species not something that can be taught alongside them? All education centers teach various studies, so there's clearly a place for wildlife protection with other worthwhile endeavors. I have indeed stated things concerning education being an admirable goal, but I also said that there's education needed for said wildlife protection. We are a people of great resources. It's not always acceptable to ignore something just because there's another thing to do, and that is exactly what's going on here. There are always going to be more urgent causes. That's just a fact of life. It isn't a competition though. We don't all need to drop what we're doing and go throw all our time, money, and effort into one or two specific causes just because those are seen as the most important. There are various causes for many things all over the world, and we have room in our schedules and our wallets to put some effort into helping these endangered species.
|
|
#30
02-13-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
I guess judging time is now?
Kudos: The opening post leads with some mild points, but points that are worth bringing up. I believe the strongest argument made here is the balancing power of nature and how life got along just fine before humans. While survival of the fittest is not the most technically correct way of looking at natural selection, its close enough that the point still stands. The second post could have been stronger if Kudos had brought up the vague definition of species. Scientists are torn on what actually constitutes a species, so bringing this up could help argue the point that the loss of a single species or subspecies would hardly be noticed. Kudos does well to cite actual research here which strengthens her argument that since so many organisms are considered endangered, it is a fool's errand to try to save them all. The last post is by far the weakest, in my opinion. Kudos argues that saving animals is a waste of time because there are more noble goals to pursue. Tormented does well in reminding us that we are capable of dealing with more than one problem at a time and there will always be debates about where to concentrate our time and resources. This final post adds little to the debate. Final Score: 6/10 Tormented: Tormented loses points from me here because he makes an argument that I don't agree is part of the original topic. The suffering of animals is a moot point because we are discussing saving populations of species, not individual animals. In fact, by taking control away from nature, humans may actually cause more stress to individuals by capturing and tagging them for study. The second post suffers from more of the same. Tormented would have made a stronger case by pointing out how much of the suffering of animals is directly caused by humans and we should have a moral responsibility to minimize our impact on them. The appeal to emotion does little for me in this case because I see Tormented's argument as too far removed from the topic of discussion. Tormented makes the strongest case in post three. Kudos has made a logical error in stating that the resources going to preserving wildlife could be put to better use elsewhere and Tormented calls her on it. While this is a successful shutdown of one of Kudos' arguments, Tormented has done little to convince me of his own position. Final Score: 4/10 I rule in favor of Kudos.
|
 |
|
|
