"Official Organized Debates"

[S Beaver]

it seems ppl here just love to argue (even though it's suppose to be friendly discussions out here)...whether they feel passionately about the subject or they just want to play devil's advocate. and after many a pages in the threads, there is never a conclusion. it usually ends up digressing or an argument (that has already been argued upon in various other threads over and over again) or it ends up as a contest in who is the better debater.

thus, i was thinking, maybe there should also be "formal" debates where judges are assigned and debaters for each cause is assigned, with limited numbers of rebuttal, etc.

just for fun. one topic can be debated many times with different posters. any contraversial topic is good (doesn't always have to be about who's the better fighter).

anyone interested?

[Han Solo]

Would be difficult as many of us are in a different time zone- so spontaneous debate is hard.

However, this idea certainly has its merits

Han Solo

[S Beaver]

i was thinking more of replying within a certain time limit range (like 1-2 days). gives the debater extra time to do research too

[PJ]

and after many a pages in the threads, there is never a conclusion.

That can be frustration. That is why, in the past whenever possible, I tried to conjugate a conclusion resulting from the discussions. But that is only possible when majority of discussion participants see it eye to eye.
\\

[redfirefly124]

it seems ppl here just love to argue (even though it's suppose to be friendly discussions out here)...whether they feel passionately about the subject or they just want to play devil's advocate. and after many a pages in the threads, there is never a conclusion. it usually ends up digressing or an argument (that has already been argued upon in various other threads over and over again) or it ends up as a contest in who is the better debater.

thus, i was thinking, maybe there should also be "formal" debates where judges are assigned and debaters for each cause is assigned, with limited numbers of rebuttal, etc.

just for fun. one topic can be debated many times with different posters. any contraversial topic is good (doesn't always have to be about who's the better fighter).

anyone interested?

Hey, this seems like a good idea! But who would be the judges? The moderators? How would you choose them?

[Han Solo]

Hey, this seems like a good idea! But who would be the judges? The moderators? How would you choose them?

Why don't we try one debate and see how it goes?

I'm wiling to be a judge- winning the debate would meant to convince the judge.

Now, just nee a topic and participants.

I would propose the following rules.

3 participant on each team, one replying after another. One post limit - so can write as much as you want- but one post only.

Both starters also get to do a final summary and rebuttal.

Points given for persuasive arguement, style, humor, rebuttal of opponent's points, and finally for accuracy.

Han SOlo

[IcyFox]

Why don't we try one debate and see how it goes?

I wouldn't mind taking part.

[redfirefly124]

Why don't we try one debate and see how it goes?

Sounds good!
But I think we should have a rule that judges should put aside their previous thoughts on the matter and be neutral.

[Han Solo]

Sounds good!
But I think we should have a rule that judges should put aside their previous thoughts on the matter and be neutral.

I hope i'm as neutral as anyone goes, don't really hold much conviction or beliefs in many theories .......

Anyway, for debaters:-
1) IcyFox

Still need 5 more, and then we can start.

Han Solo

[Yeung Gor]

There should be 3 judges to be fair, and each judge should have different views. The odd number of judges will garranteed a winner.

[S Beaver]

There should be 3 judges to be fair, and each judge should have different views. The odd number of judges will garranteed a winner.

that's what i was thinking too. each judge can think for his/her verdict and be as impartial as possible.


maybe a topic should be made first. then maybe some passionate recruiters will join.

Why don't we try one debate and see how it goes?

I'm wiling to be a judge- winning the debate would meant to convince the judge.

Now, just nee a topic and participants.

I would propose the following rules.

3 participant on each team, one replying after another. One post limit - so can write as much as you want- but one post only.

Both starters also get to do a final summary and rebuttal.

Points given for persuasive arguement, style, humor, rebuttal of opponent's points, and finally for accuracy.

Han SOlo

i think a time limit should be given...a week maybe? in anycase, if one member fails to post, a teammate may be able to make up for it?

[PJ]

So here is a question,

if the judge thinks debater #1 has won the debate... but debater #1 is clearly "incorrect", what should the judge do?

For example, if I debate with a new comer (who doesn't have much experience with wuxia discussions) about whether Chen Jinnan's Blood-Freezing Claw is the most powerful skill throughout Jin Yong wuxia, and I manage to make my argument sound better... should I win the debate?

[S Beaver]

So here is a question,

if the judge thinks debater #1 has won the debate... but debater #1 is clearly "incorrect", what should the judge do?

For example, if I debate with a new comer (who doesn't have much experience with wuxia discussions) about whether Chen Jinnan's Blood-Freezing Claw is the most powerful skill throughout Jin Yong wuxia, and I manage to make my argument sound better... should I win the debate?

if your arugment & evidence sounds good, i don't see why not

plus, there's other team members to check for the rebuttals too

[HuangYushi]

So here is a question,

if the judge thinks debater #1 has won the debate... but debater #1 is clearly "incorrect", what should the judge do?

For example, if I debate with a new comer (who doesn't have much experience with wuxia discussions) about whether Chen Jinnan's Blood-Freezing Claw is the most powerful skill throughout Jin Yong wuxia, and I manage to make my argument sound better... should I win the debate?

Based on Han Solo's system of points:

Points given for persuasive arguement, style, humor, rebuttal of opponent's points, and finally for accuracy.

Weights could be assigned to the different criteria, for example:
- Persuasive argument: 10%
- Style: 10%
- Humour: 10%
- Rebuttal: 10%
- Accuracy: 60% (has to be more than 50%).

The weights above were *randomly assigned for the purpose of illustration*, but if the weightage of Accuracy is high enough, any "win" by a debater who is weak in the knowledge of the novel content (and/or poor in research, for that matter) would simply be one of skill in persuasive argument, instead of true wuxia knowledge, especially if the points are posted for all to see.

[S Beaver]

Based on Han Solo's system of points:


Weights could be assigned to the different criteria, for example:
- Persuasive argument: 10%
- Style: 10%
- Humour: 10%
- Rebuttal: 10%
- Accuracy: 60% (has to be more than 50%).

The weights above were *randomly assigned for the purpose of illustration*, but if the weightage of Accuracy is high enough, any "win" by a debater who is weak in the knowledge of the novel content (and/or poor in research, for that matter) would simply be one of skill in persuasive argument, instead of true wuxia knowledge, especially if the points are posted for all to see.

since most topics have rather inconclusive...i think persuasive argument (which includes rebuttal) should be worth the most. followed by style. accuracy itself should be self apparnt in the judging. obviously, evidence that has been found to be inaccurate should get points docked off and disregarded. vague evidence should be less convincing than solid evidence in the first place.

[Han Solo]

since most topics have rather inconclusive...i think persuasive argument (which includes rebuttal) should be worth the most. followed by style. accuracy itself should be self apparnt in the judging. obviously, evidence that has been found to be inaccurate should get points docked off and disregarded. vague evidence should be less convincing than solid evidence in the first place.

Agree with this.

S. Beaver- why don;t you come up with a topic and we can get the ball rolling?

Han Solo

[S Beaver]

someone earlier (before the crash) had suggested GJ vs. YG since it's almost a classic unsettling debate. as sensitive as a topic it may be, it is one of the most pre-researched easy info accessed topics out there, which should be a good thing for a first debeate.

but in any case, did you have anything in mind?

it doesn't necessarily have to be "vs" topics (although those prove quite popular here). perhaps later we can try more "literary/analytical" topics.

other popular topics that come to mind for now for easy contraversial topics with plenty of evidences are the era comparison, the greats rankings, dugu's theories/swords, technique vs power vs speed, who is faster, etc

[Ren Ying Ying]

anyone still up for this?

putting more thought, GJ vs. YG is a bad idea despite it's popularity.



here's some things i had in mind judging on the most popular threads and some things i just came up with

"Martial arts comparison between DGSD era and LOCH/ROCH era"

"Dugu Qiubai & his sword theories: what are they and was DGQB all that he claimed to be"

"Wang Chong Yang's true level"

"Guo Jing (or any other characters)--right/wrong or good/bad or smart/dumb decision?"

"Killing in Wuxia--is it justified?"

"Improvement rates of the LOCH/ROCH "Greats" leveled fighters"

keep in mind though, any conclusions resulted from the debates does not necessarily reflect the "truth". victory is simply measures upon the debaters' skills.

[Ken Cheng]

putting more thought, GJ vs. YG is a bad idea despite it's popularity.

Yes. It will lead to a catastrophe of biblical proportions here at the SPCNET Wuxia Forum...fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...the dead rising from their graves! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

So let's do it.

[Ren Ying Ying]

So let's do it.

You mean GJ vs. YG?