Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Personal Online Debating Format

Benjamin_Manus
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal
Regards,
Benjamin Manus
---
Secretary General,
Westfield Academy Model United Nations
---
Assistant Coach,
Westfield Academy of Debate and Public Speaking
---
Systems Administrator,
VanceCloud VPS Hosting
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:30:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

Just state specifically what type of debate, you're looking for and you'll get voters and opponent's more receptive to that style.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal
Benjamin_Manus
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:35:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

I'm not faulting anyone, but I'm saying that for the judges, please judge the entire debate on sources and statistics -.-
Regards,
Benjamin Manus
---
Secretary General,
Westfield Academy Model United Nations
---
Assistant Coach,
Westfield Academy of Debate and Public Speaking
---
Systems Administrator,
VanceCloud VPS Hosting
Benjamin_Manus
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:38:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:35:46 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

I'm not faulting anyone, but I'm saying that for the judges, please judge the entire debate on sources and statistics -.-

Please don't judge the entire debate etc.*
Regards,
Benjamin Manus
---
Secretary General,
Westfield Academy Model United Nations
---
Assistant Coach,
Westfield Academy of Debate and Public Speaking
---
Systems Administrator,
VanceCloud VPS Hosting
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:45:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me just go over an argument that you had which was sadly only a paragraph long and not elaborated on much.

I understand where you're coming from, but I certainly do not agree.

No crap you don't agree. It's why you're debating. This is fluff.

We are spending trillions of dollars on the defense budget, a lot of which is excess on new inventions we don't currently need.

Are we spending trillions of dollars or did you pull that number out of your butt. If you're not going to use citations than make a philosophical argument. I don't like taking anybody's word for anything.

The money that is taken from the military budget can go to to other more pressing problems such as foreign aid, eliminating poverty, and putting money back into the economy in general.

Why are these issues more pressing? Why will throwing money at those problems fix them?

The average consumer will have more money to spend thus creating a larger demand for a product. It's the simple "Supply and Demand" theory from basic economics. I agree, security is important and we do need it. But at this amount? Do we need to go trillions of dollars into debt just for security?

Well you wanted to spend what we saved on cutting back on poverty and foreign aid. So how will people be able to keep more of their money?

Why is debt bad?

After being through streets that are littered with garbage, and after seeing people (especially the elderly) living on the side of the road, many of which have probably been veteran of foreign wars, I say no. Cut back military spending to better the United States economy and help those in need.

Just generally a bunch of premises which are unsupported, contradictory and not elaborated on enough.

I actually buy that you can win that debate on the exact same premises but you need to show some more effort. This isn't even a matter of skill, just being lazy in your argumentation.

Let's say you did just spit out a bunch of random things with no research?

You still need to use good rhetoric to get voters on your side and the rhetoric was completely missing.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:18:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.


I do that with a lot of my debates, haha

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:19:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:38:02 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:35:46 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

I'm not faulting anyone, but I'm saying that for the judges, please judge the entire debate on sources and statistics -.-

Please don't judge the entire debate etc.*

I have memorized most of the statistics I use ;D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:18:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.


I do that with a lot of my debates, haha

I'm not sayingnI don't but there is a difference when we do it and when he does.

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:08:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

This is very much like the format of MUN conferences. Someone would give a speech, and if he/she is open to any points of inquiry, people get to ask him/her questions, and he/she would have to answer after.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:21:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
DDO doesn't run on a "no sources, no statistics needed" setup. If you don't give sources or statistics, and the opponent does, you've probably lost. In stead of asking the voters to just ignore the fact that your claims are completely unsubstantiated, perhaps substantiate them. If you're debate style isn't in line with Voter wants, then you need to put it in line.

And I'll point out, I don't agree with "No Statistics, No Sources". That is cheap and in no way shows intellectualism. This site is built of intellectual debate, not impromptu arguments where we must just assume your right.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:07:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:58:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:18:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.


I do that with a lot of my debates, haha

I'm not sayingnI don't but there is a difference when we do it and when he does.


LOL XD

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:01:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

You should specify rules at the beginning of your debates stating that it is parliamentary style, so no sources are allowed nor is any research. If you don't do that, people will mark you off for sources and it's likely you will also lose. If a parli debater went against any other type of debater (LD, policy, pofo) and the other debater could use sources, the parli debater will usually lose. Researched, well-thought out arguments are usually going to beat typing out the first thing that pops into your head. Personally, I would recommend that you try out a more researched style on the site. I think you'll be more successful in the long run and parli debaters who try a research-driven event (like policy or Pofo) generally become much better at parli because they have a bigger knowledge base to build on.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:02:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:


There's also a "choose winner" voting option when you instigate a debate that will make it so people won't vote on sources.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:04:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

This is actually the parli debate style. At the high school level, it's an infuriating type of debate to judge because 80% of the debates are horrible. Neither side knows enough about the topic to put a coherent case together. And the debaters lie and make up sources constantly because no one can call them on it. There's a "no evidence" rule, but they can still cite general research they have done before the debate started.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:10:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:04:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

This is actually the parli debate style. At the high school level, it's an infuriating type of debate to judge because 80% of the debates are horrible. Neither side knows enough about the topic to put a coherent case together. And the debaters lie and make up sources constantly because no one can call them on it. There's a "no evidence" rule, but they can still cite general research they have done before the debate started.

As much as I'm a numbers junky, that would annoy the crap out of me to watch a couple of kids who know nothing about a subject make up random stuff and spout out retarded arguments.

Can't these kids just argue about politics on the playground using facts they heard their dad shout at the television when he was drunk and mad at the political side he opposes?
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 11:23:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:38:02 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:35:46 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:33:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:16:38 AM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
I've seen this in three out of four of my debates. The voters, this is nothing against them, but they get confused on which debate style I'm using which is called Parliamentary. They call me on not having many facts, but in Parliamentary debate, you don't need many sources and statistics. It's an impromptu debate. Background knowledge only. Hopefully, this topic will help the voters understand my form of debate.

As I just stated, I use the Parliamentary style of debating with cross-examination meaning no sources or statistics necessary. So please, do not mark me off as not having sources.

Your arguments are pretty weak in those debates and you seem to type them up in 10 minutes flat. You're not really putting much effort into your debates.

Once you start trying a little harder maybe voters will be more receptive towards you.

If you lose it's best to look at yourself as the problem instead of others.

I will also lay down the format that I want to be debated in for any possible challengers. Here is how the rounds are going to work from now on (when I start a debate. Hopefully, if someone challenges me, they will use this format as well).

Round 1:
Pro: States arguments
Con: Asks questions

Round 2:
Pro: Answers questions
Con: States arguments

Round 3:
Pro: Asks questions
Con: Answers questions

Round 4:
Pro: Rebuttal
Con: Rebuttal

I'm not faulting anyone, but I'm saying that for the judges, please judge the entire debate on sources and statistics -.-

Please don't judge the entire debate etc.*

sources are important and can mean the difference between a victory or a lost debate . Don't look at the voters as the source of the problem . Unless you state what type of style you want to debate in , in R1 then you can't demand voters not to judge the debate like this.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica