Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Round 1

Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 3:45:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here is how each debate is to commence. Please carefully read the following.

Pro is to challenge Con with their case by the date posted (March 6th @ 8 pm central). Once the challenge has been completed, con must accept it 2 days after the challenge.

Filling out the challenge:

-OPPONENT: Type in your opponent's name. For accuracy I would recommend going to their account and challenging them from there.
-TOPIC: Fill in the resolution word for word.
-POSITION: Pro
-CATEGORY: This doesn't really matter too much.
-ROUNDS: 3 (This won't change until the final. Even then it might not happen)
-VOTING PERIOD: Indefinitely
-TIME TO ARGUE: 2 days (This will more than likely be extended later)
-ARGUMENT MAX: For rounds 1 and 2, it will be 4,000 characters. This will be lengthened progressively and will be posted with each round posting.

Round 1

Topic: Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.
Challenge Date: March 6th @ 8:00 p.m. Central
Character max: 4,000

PRO___________________CON

Nails___________________Korashk

mongeese_______________TheSkeptic

wjmelements____________BellumQuodPacis

TheLwerd_______________HiOedipus

alto2osu________________Clockwork

*Results provided by random.org

-Round 2 will be posted on March 11th around 5:00 P.M. Central time. Remember, you only get 2 losses before you are eliminated, so each round is important (judges will be assigned after the round is completed).

PM me with questions or any mistakes I may have made.

Good Luck!
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 6:59:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 6:32:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
Five days is not long enough for an entire round.

Well rounds 1 and 2 will slightly overlap. The first 2 rounds don't effect each other.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2010 8:24:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyway, I'm in New York and will be visiting with my friends and family here before spending a day traveling back to Illinois. I really don't think allowing just 2 days is going to work out. If your goal this time around, Johnicle, is to reduce the number of forfeits, then I don't believe cutting the debate time to 2 days instead of 3 (which many people couldn't do even then) is going to solve your problem. However, I'll set it up as such unless you instruct us otherwise. I won't even get a chance to write a round probably UNTIL the 8th (unless I find some time today which is unlikely) so just let us know if you change your mind. And good luck to errbody.
President of DDO
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2010 1:20:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/5/2010 8:24:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Anyway, I'm in New York and will be visiting with my friends and family here before spending a day traveling back to Illinois. I really don't think allowing just 2 days is going to work out. If your goal this time around, Johnicle, is to reduce the number of forfeits, then I don't believe cutting the debate time to 2 days instead of 3 (which many people couldn't do even then) is going to solve your problem. However, I'll set it up as such unless you instruct us otherwise. I won't even get a chance to write a round probably UNTIL the 8th (unless I find some time today which is unlikely) so just let us know if you change your mind. And good luck to errbody.

It was more of a time thing. Also, considering that it is only 4,000 character rounds then it shouldn't be too hard to find even 20-30 minutes to quickly type something up. I know it can be hard at times, but if I make it a 3 day challenge/accept challenge/round, each debate could take up to 21 days. That is almost unmanageable. Later rounds, perhaps even round 3, will be longer.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 10:08:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/5/2010 7:53:40 PM, wjmelements wrote:
BQP has been absent for 5 days. I request a replacement opponent.

It will probably be a win for you. Since there is an even number of debaters, a replacement isn't really possible but I probably wouldn't even if I could.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 12:53:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Was it your intention for CON to win in a tie between promoting democratic principles and promoting sovereignty, as the resolution currently implies?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 1:08:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If neither should be prioritized above the other, the resolution is negated, and CON wins. This gives CON a slight edge over PRO.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:41:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
PRO___________________CON

Nails___________________Korashk

mongeese_______________TheSkeptic

wjmelements____________BellumQuodPacis

TheLwerd_______________HiOedipus

alto2osu________________Clockwork

If mongeese, wjmelements, or TheLwerd want to remain in the tournament, they must message me before round 2 is posted. I'll give you until noon central time on the 11th.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:48:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 1:08:59 PM, mongeese wrote:
If neither should be prioritized above the other, the resolution is negated, and CON wins. This gives CON a slight edge over PRO.
Not necessarily.
Let me give you an example.

Resolution: 1<2
PRO is right if 1<2
CON is right if 1=2
CON is right if 1>2

By your logic, this means that the resolution is skewed in CON's favor, since he not only wins with the diametrically opposed claim but also the claim between these two extremes. But we see that that logic fails miserably here, because the probability of both CON's two possible positions actually ends up being less than the probability of PRO's single position.

Your logic only succeeds if we assume an a priori equivalent probability for the resolution and the diametrically opposed claim, and a nonzero probability for the claim in the middle of the two. However, if we look at one of the most successful debating values, utilitarianism, it's quite probable that it favors the resolution being true.

Also, it's quite possible that the middle ground, equivalent priority, has zero or infinitesimal probability, such as in this case:

"a" = random real number from 0 to 1
"b" = random real number from 0 to 1

a>b: 50% likely
b>a: 50% likely
a=b: 0% likely

In any case, in your claim that the resolution favors CON, you are assuming too much about the probabilities of all possible situations.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 9:06:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:41:52 PM, Johnicle wrote:
PRO___________________CON

Nails___________________Korashk

mongeese_______________TheSkeptic

wjmelements____________BellumQuodPacis

TheLwerd_______________HiOedipus

alto2osu________________Clockwork

If mongeese, wjmelements, or TheLwerd want to remain in the tournament, they must message me before round 2 is posted. I'll give you until noon central time on the 11th.

Eh, I said I wouldn't be able to challenge Con in 2 days since I was traveling (it's Spring Break for us college students right now). There's just 10 people participating, only 5 debates issued and you're gonna count 3 debates as automatic losses despite the forewarning of my possible lateness because of prior travel plans? Nevermind then - that essentially puts me and others at a 1 round elimination automatically without a choice from me, so I'll respectfully withdraw my participation in the tourney. Good luck to the other debaters.
President of DDO
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 7:16:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 9:06:47 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:41:52 PM, Johnicle wrote:
PRO___________________CON

Nails___________________Korashk

mongeese_______________TheSkeptic

wjmelements____________BellumQuodPacis

TheLwerd_______________HiOedipus

alto2osu________________Clockwork

If mongeese, wjmelements, or TheLwerd want to remain in the tournament, they must message me before round 2 is posted. I'll give you until noon central time on the 11th.

Given Korashk's leave as well, I think this will boil down between me and alto or clockwork...not too promising for a large tournament :/

Shame, I was looking forward to a big one. Maybe I'm a tournament curse-bringer?
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 10:21:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 12:53:15 PM, mongeese wrote:
Was it your intention for CON to win in a tie between promoting democratic principles and promoting sovereignty, as the resolution currently implies?

That win can't be achieved unless you can adequately argue that both of those things deserve equal treatment from a foreign policy standpoint. That'll require warrants and stuff-- it won't be an easily won argument.
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 10:29:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 7:16:20 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 3/8/2010 9:06:47 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:41:52 PM, Johnicle wrote:
PRO___________________CON

Nails___________________Korashk

mongeese_______________TheSkeptic

wjmelements____________BellumQuodPacis

TheLwerd_______________HiOedipus

alto2osu________________Clockwork

If mongeese, wjmelements, or TheLwerd want to remain in the tournament, they must message me before round 2 is posted. I'll give you until noon central time on the 11th.

Given Korashk's leave as well, I think this will boil down between me and alto or clockwork...not too promising for a large tournament :/

Shame, I was looking forward to a big one. Maybe I'm a tournament curse-bringer?

Nah :) I'm sure it isn't you. It's a lack of follow-through, which is sort of a bummer. I think Lwerd should have been given a bit of extra time (although she was...until like the 11th...so unless John wasn't willing to give a RD 1 extension, the fit was a little uncalled for).

I'm glad that Clockwork and I are on it :D
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I gave an extension to 3 days and 5 hours. More than a day past the original request. Sorry but I can't give extensions like I did last tournament.

Wjmelements has requested back into the tournament, I accepted.
Mongeese has not yet made a request.

TheLwerd, and Korashk have left the tournament respectively.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:36:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 10:29:25 PM, alto2osu wrote:

Nah :) I'm sure it isn't you. It's a lack of follow-through, which is sort of a bummer. I think Lwerd should have been given a bit of extra time (although she was...until like the 11th...so unless John wasn't willing to give a RD 1 extension, the fit was a little uncalled for).

I'm glad that Clockwork and I are on it :D

I'm not really sure what's happening. From what I gathered, Johnicle was willing to give an extension to 3/11 regarding the 2nd round challenge BUT I would have had to lose the first round as a forfeit. That's the bit I had an issue with. I mentioned it was Spring Break for us college kids and I was traveling so I wouldn't be able to post a first round in time. I didn't feel like accepting 1 loss automatically (in a 2-loss elimination tournament) simply because I was out of town -- I think that gives people an unfair advantage. I told Johnicle that in an e-mail and he responded with "You're still in" even though I haven't signed on until just now here on March 12 and have yet to issue either challenge. If I'm still in, I can send the first challenge out by tonight and the second by tomorrow night. I don't mind doing 2 debates in a row. The problem for me wasn't no time for debating -- It's that I've been busy and haven't been on DDO at all in days. I'm back and now have time to debate. However, if I'm out, then that's totally cool too. Good luck. It should be a short tournament with just a handful of people participating.
President of DDO
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 3:13:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Round 2

Same Topic
Challenge Deadline: March 15th @ 5:00 PM Central Time
Character Limit: 4,000
Days to Argue: 3

PRO__________________________CON

Clockwork_____________________wjmelements

TheSkeptic_____________________Nails

HiOedipus_____________________Alto2osu

BellumQuodPacis_______________Rockylightning

Good Luck!
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 3:28:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can someone explain briefly what the topic means? I'm not sure what it means to promote democratic principles over sovereignty...you saying we should promote democracy rather than conquering the whole d@mn world?
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2010 9:50:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 3:28:29 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Can someone explain briefly what the topic means? I'm not sure what it means to promote democratic principles over sovereignty...you saying we should promote democracy rather than conquering the whole d@mn world?

I interpreted the resolution as the philosophical decision-making that goes on in the foreign policy background, basically. Hence, while foreign policy *does*, technically, involve the whole world at once (sort of...), it doesn't have to. I'd say that the ground of the resolution deals specifically in a political power's intervention in the internal conflicts of another country with regards to their gov't structure and its "just" functioning. Ex, though freedom of speech is slightly removed from core rights: should the US be butting into China's business with their national firewall? Aff says yes. Neg says no.

In my first round, that involved human rights protection and the social contract (at least for me-- Clockwork and I didn't seem to quite meet in the middle on framer's intent :) ).

The round Clockwork and I ran has two competing interpretations of this resolution in it, so take a look if you like. Hope that helped.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 5:52:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/13/2010 9:50:05 AM, alto2osu wrote:
At 3/12/2010 3:28:29 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Can someone explain briefly what the topic means? I'm not sure what it means to promote democratic principles over sovereignty...you saying we should promote democracy rather than conquering the whole d@mn world?

I interpreted the resolution as the philosophical decision-making that goes on in the foreign policy background, basically. Hence, while foreign policy *does*, technically, involve the whole world at once (sort of...), it doesn't have to. I'd say that the ground of the resolution deals specifically in a political power's intervention in the internal conflicts of another country with regards to their gov't structure and its "just" functioning. Ex, though freedom of speech is slightly removed from core rights: should the US be butting into China's business with their national firewall? Aff says yes. Neg says no.

In my first round, that involved human rights protection and the social contract (at least for me-- Clockwork and I didn't seem to quite meet in the middle on framer's intent :) ).

The round Clockwork and I ran has two competing interpretations of this resolution in it, so take a look if you like. Hope that helped.

Ah, okay I see thanks :).
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 10:12:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Clockwork_____________________wjmelements

TheSkeptic_____________________Nails

HiOedipus_____________________Alto2osu

BellumQuodPacis_______________Rockylightning

forfeits... TheSkeptic debate has not been challenged yet.
Nails
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 2:02:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maybe you should post Round 2 as a new thread. I didn't even know R2 had started until just now. Others might share my problem. I was lucky enough to be the challenged, not challenger.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/16/2010 2:02:31 PM, Nails wrote:
Maybe you should post Round 2 as a new thread. I didn't even know R2 had started until just now. Others might share my problem. I was lucky enough to be the challenged, not challenger.

Didn't you get my message?