Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

The best amount of rounds for a debate?

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:58:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How many rounds do you prefer your debates to be, and why?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 11:39:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:58:33 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
How many rounds do you prefer your debates to be, and why?

4. 5 may get overly long, but with 4, you can ensure both sides have equal number of rounds for cases, rebuttals, and defenses.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 1:47:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd say 4. 3 is not enough - it ends up making for 2 rounds of debate, which isn't so much debate as it is 2 separate arguments without clash. 5 rounds tends to be excessive, allowing so much back and forth that arguments and responses tend to become repetitive or it becomes a slew of disconnected arguments. 5 rounds can be good if you've got a really beefy topic of debate and 2 debaters who are very good at crystallizing arguments, but I'd say that's uncommon.
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 1:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:58:33 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
How many rounds do you prefer your debates to be, and why?

For having a good debate, Or securing A Guranteed win?
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 2:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 1:47:00 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I'd say 4. 3 is not enough - it ends up making for 2 rounds of debate, which isn't so much debate as it is 2 separate arguments without clash. 5 rounds tends to be excessive, allowing so much back and forth that arguments and responses tend to become repetitive or it becomes a slew of disconnected arguments. 5 rounds can be good if you've got a really beefy topic of debate and 2 debaters who are very good at crystallizing arguments, but I'd say that's uncommon.

+1
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:25:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
5 rounds, so the debate is properly structured.

5 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals
5. impact analysis/closing statement

When you get less rounds than this, certain rounds have to do double duty.

4 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals/ closing statement

When we get Lowe than 4, we have to drop certain aspects of debating

3 round debate.

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals/closing statement

2 round debate

1. Arguments
2. Rebuttals/closing statement

1 round debate

1. Arguments and rebuttals (instigated must anticipate opponents arguments well).
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:37:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:25:13 PM, Wylted wrote:
5 rounds, so the debate is properly structured.

5 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals
5. impact analysis/closing statement

In an ideal situation, this would work out. What usually ends up happening is that either this style isn't followed, or the final round becomes an extension of rebuttals rather than a round focused on analysis and conclusion.

When you get less rounds than this, certain rounds have to do double duty.

4 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals/ closing statement

When we get Lowe than 4, we have to drop certain aspects of debating

3 round debate.

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals/closing statement

2 round debate

1. Arguments
2. Rebuttals/closing statement

1 round debate

1. Arguments and rebuttals (instigated must anticipate opponents arguments well).
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:03:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:25:13 PM, Wylted wrote:
5 rounds, so the debate is properly structured.

5 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals
5. impact analysis/closing statement

When you get less rounds than this, certain rounds have to do double duty.

4 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals/ closing statement

Disagree entirely. I had a debate like this once with BlackVoid and it led to a very choppy round structure where a debater can't answer what their opponent said in their previous argument but have to refer to the one before that. A better option would be:

1. Acceptance
2. Pro posts case, Con posts case and rebuts Pro's case.
3. Pro defends his own case and rebuts Con's case. Con does the same and addresses all arguments brought up so far.
4. Both debaters address major arguments, impact analysis, closing.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:05:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In short, every argument brought up in the round before you is fair game to address. That's how most debates on the site take place and that's the most natural way to do it. Anything else artificially blocks the flow of arguments and makes it harder for the reader to keep up.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:07:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For example, if Pro has two points P1 and P2 and Con has two points C1 and C2, the round structure would be:

1. Acceptance
2. Pro: P1, P2, Con: C1, C2, rebut P1, P2
3. Pro: Defend P1, P2, rebut C1, C2. Con: Defend C1, C2, rebut P1, P2.
4. Pro: Defend P1, P2, rebut C1, C2, Con: Defend C1, C2, rebut P1, P2.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:55:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 8:03:43 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:25:13 PM, Wylted wrote:
5 rounds, so the debate is properly structured.

5 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals
5. impact analysis/closing statement

When you get less rounds than this, certain rounds have to do double duty.

4 round debate:

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Counter rebuttals/ closing statement

Disagree entirely. I had a debate like this once with BlackVoid and it led to a very choppy round structure where a debater can't answer what their opponent said in their previous argument but have to refer to the one before that. A better option would be:

1. Acceptance
2. Pro posts case, Con posts case and rebuts Pro's case.
3. Pro defends his own case and rebuts Con's case. Con does the same and addresses all arguments brought up so far.
4. Both debaters address major arguments, impact analysis, closing.

I'd prefer to see everyone have the same exact amount of character space for arguments, revuttals and counter rebuttals. It seems unfair that one side would have 10,000 characters for arguments while the other side would best case scenario split it 5,000 characters for opening arguments and 5,000 for rebuttals.

I also don't think the structure should be so strictly followed that you absolutely can't address anything in the same round, just that you should try to refrain out of fairness to yourself and your opponent, since they can't offer rebuttals in tound 2 and it cuts into your space.

Ideally I'd love both debaters being able to write their rounds at the same time, and be blind to what their opponent wrote in that round until after they post.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:30:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 12:55:28 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd prefer to see everyone have the same exact amount of character space for arguments, rebuttals and counter rebuttals. It seems unfair that one side would have 10,000 characters for arguments while the other side would best case scenario split it 5,000 characters for opening arguments and 5,000 for rebuttals.

That doesn't really matter though as long as the <i>total</i> is the same number of characters.

Who do you think gets an advantage from simply following the "default" structure where everything said before the round you are posting is fair game for addressing?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:38:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In your scenario, Pro may have 10,000 characters to make his opening case but only gets two 5000 character rebuttals of Con's case (Round 3 and Round 4)whereas Con may have only 5000 characters to make his initial case but gets three 5000 character rebuttals to Pro's initial case (Rounds 2, 3, and 4) so it balances out.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:40:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:30:22 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/2/2015 12:55:28 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd prefer to see everyone have the same exact amount of character space for arguments, rebuttals and counter rebuttals. It seems unfair that one side would have 10,000 characters for arguments while the other side would best case scenario split it 5,000 characters for opening arguments and 5,000 for rebuttals.

That doesn't really matter though as long as the <i>total</i> is the same number of characters.

Who do you think gets an advantage from simply following the "default" structure where everything said before the round you are posting is fair game for addressing?

I agree with before the round, just not during the same round. If the first person to post in round 2 can't address the second part of round 2s arguments, I don't see why the other person in round 2 should be allowed to either.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:40:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Personally I find being Pro the most challenging because it is hard to come up with a 10,000 character case that is extremely strong when you don't have very much to say. In the later rounds when you have a lot you want to address, you have to keep cutting down characters and fitting everything in. It is a lot easier to start as Con rebutting Pro's case and making your own.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:43:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:40:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
I agree with before the round, just not during the same round. If the first person to post in round 2 can't address the second part of round 2s arguments, I don't see why the other person in round 2 should be allowed to either.

I look at debates not as individual piece rounds but as a whole so flows one after the other. For example:

Pro R2 -> Con R2 -> Pro R3 -> Con R3 -> Pro R4 -> Con R4

In each of the pieces, the debater should be able to address what's said in the previous piece. It is fairer because the debate is a whole, not just a sum of each round.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:45:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:58:33 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
How many rounds do you prefer your debates to be, and why?

5 w/ 10,000 characters per round. I am verbose...what can I say?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:46:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:38:10 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
In your scenario, Pro may have 10,000 characters to make his opening case but only gets two 5000 character rebuttals of Con's case (Round 3 and Round 4)whereas Con may have only 5000 characters to make his initial case but gets three 5000 character rebuttals to Pro's initial case (Rounds 2, 3, and 4) so it balances out.

I guess in some ways it balances out, but in others it's oddly staggered.

We get this

Pro 10,000 characters for opening argument con 5,000. Immediate advantage to pro.

Pro 5,000 for rebuttals con 5,000 for rebuttals. It's a wash, but overall the advantage is still on pro.

Counter rebuttals pro gets 5,000 for them and con gets 5,000. Another wash

Closing statements etc. pro gets 5,000 characters and con gets 10,000, but since new arguments don't count in the final round these extra 5,000 characters are less valuable than the ones for opening arguments.

Not to mention if it's split BOP, than con is at an even bigger disadvantage because pro has more characters to make a positive case.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:47:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:43:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:40:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
I agree with before the round, just not during the same round. If the first person to post in round 2 can't address the second part of round 2s arguments, I don't see why the other person in round 2 should be allowed to either.

I look at debates not as individual piece rounds but as a whole so flows one after the other. For example:

Pro R2 -> Con R2 -> Pro R3 -> Con R3 -> Pro R4 -> Con R4

In each of the pieces, the debater should be able to address what's said in the previous piece. It is fairer because the debate is a whole, not just a sum of each round.

I guess I have more fragmented thinking than you.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:56:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:46:04 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:38:10 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
In your scenario, Pro may have 10,000 characters to make his opening case but only gets two 5000 character rebuttals of Con's case (Round 3 and Round 4)whereas Con may have only 5000 characters to make his initial case but gets three 5000 character rebuttals to Pro's initial case (Rounds 2, 3, and 4) so it balances out.

I guess in some ways it balances out, but in others it's oddly staggered.

We get this

Pro 10,000 characters for opening argument con 5,000. Immediate advantage to pro.

Pro 5,000 for rebuttals con 5,000 for rebuttals. It's a wash, but overall the advantage is still on pro.

Counter rebuttals pro gets 5,000 for them and con gets 5,000. Another wash

Closing statements etc. pro gets 5,000 characters and con gets 10,000, but since new arguments don't count in the final round these extra 5,000 characters are less valuable than the ones for opening arguments.

Not to mention if it's split BOP, than con is at an even bigger disadvantage because pro has more characters to make a positive case.

In addition to what I said earlier (it is hardest to make a long opening case because the opening is when you have the least to say), I'm having a hard time following your math.

Assuming a 4 round debate:

Round 2: Pro gets 10,000 characters for opening case, Con gets 5000 for opening but can use 5000 characters to rebut Pro's case. So, at the end of round 2, I'm not seeing how Pro has the advantage. Con has so far rebutted Pro's case and also has an unanswered opening case. So, at the end of round 2, it is Con that has a slight advantage.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 2:00:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:56:44 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:46:04 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:38:10 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
In your scenario, Pro may have 10,000 characters to make his opening case but only gets two 5000 character rebuttals of Con's case (Round 3 and Round 4)whereas Con may have only 5000 characters to make his initial case but gets three 5000 character rebuttals to Pro's initial case (Rounds 2, 3, and 4) so it balances out.

I guess in some ways it balances out, but in others it's oddly staggered.

We get this

Pro 10,000 characters for opening argument con 5,000. Immediate advantage to pro.

Pro 5,000 for rebuttals con 5,000 for rebuttals. It's a wash, but overall the advantage is still on pro.

Counter rebuttals pro gets 5,000 for them and con gets 5,000. Another wash

Closing statements etc. pro gets 5,000 characters and con gets 10,000, but since new arguments don't count in the final round these extra 5,000 characters are less valuable than the ones for opening arguments.

Not to mention if it's split BOP, than con is at an even bigger disadvantage because pro has more characters to make a positive case.

In addition to what I said earlier (it is hardest to make a long opening case because the opening is when you have the least to say), I'm having a hard time following your math.

Assuming a 4 round debate:

Round 2: Pro gets 10,000 characters for opening case, Con gets 5000 for opening but can use 5000 characters to rebut Pro's case. So, at the end of round 2, I'm not seeing how Pro has the advantage. Con has so far rebutted Pro's case and also has an unanswered opening case. So, at the end of round 2, it is Con that has a slight advantage.

I don't know. I want to do another debate on judicial corporal punishment and I feel like I really need 20,000 characters for it. I'd really feel cheated if I only had 5,000 to work with. I understand your points though, I just don't agree. I don't think my preferred structure hurts readability, but I guess you do. I'll read a few by other people in both styles, paying particular attention to that, and see if it changes my mind.