PF Debates: Will You Participate?

A person who cannot be unbiased shouldn't be a judge. Period.

The way another forum I was on handled judged debates was this: they actually had a well-defined scoring system which made it easy for the judges. There were several criteria, with each one having set point values. That forum is no longer in existence and I don't remember the criteria, darn it, but they were designed so that bias didn't enter the equation.

To the best of my recollection, there were a series of yes/no questions. If a debater had satisfied certain criteria, he or she would get a yes and points from the judge or judges. No points were given for a no. This resulted in an objective scoring system.

I remember that a debater had to respond to an opponent within a certain time limit, but that's all that I can remember.

 

Can you prove it?

 

Err, I don't belong to any groups like that, err, so go on, err, about nothing. You see, I don't need to pool my brain with others to get my point across.

 

You are right SMW.

What would show how smart they are is to fill the bandwidth with endless chatter, maybe a social place, where they can pretend they are all together, hanging out in an adult environment, being wild and wacky, like a nightclub or a restaurant or something like that.

That would be the intellectual behemoth thing to do.

Really SMW? You are criticizing others for hanging out in non political related threads? The hypocrisy in your post is denser than lead.

 

The thread is petering out...sort of like an idea whose time has come and gone. Fish or cut bait.

 

I really don't see how this is a partisan issue. There are conservatives at this forum very capable of defending their beliefs, just like there are liberals who are. Both of those groups though, sadly, are a minority. Most of the people at this forum use the debate tactic of "assert something loudly and often, don't worry about argument or evidence." Or "insult the opposition, don't worry about argument or evidence."


However you seem to be laboring under the delusion that all posters at this forum consistently have something productive to offer the forum. That is a false statement. Presenting a conclusion as fact, without providing evidence or argument is NOT valuable in any way. I know the conclusion of most conservatives before even going into a thread, as most likely know mine. The key to productive debate is offering evidence and argument in support of your conclusions. Since most at this forum have no interest in doing any such thing, both liberals and conservatives, I reject entirely the idea that all posters are valuable contributors. In fact it seems, as I pointed out earlier, that liberals and conservatives have switched places. You now want everyone to get a participation ribbon, and don't want to judge anyone because that would hurt people's feelings. Where as liberals seem to want to judge everyone, and weed out the unworthy(I am not among those liberals). Seems as if that is a complete role reversal from the general position taken by both sides in the real world. It is usually conservatives who say we need to judge more and more stringently. Where as liberals often want to be the ones giving out the participation ribbons. Why in this instance, have the roles been reversed? Why in this instance are the conservatives playing the role of the inclusive, tolerant, and self-esteem boosting liberals? Why are liberals trying to judge people? It is an interesting question, that seems to come down to nothing more than partisanship. Initially conservatives were mostly fine with this, then you objected, and it was like sheep following the shepherd. Liberals were initially on board for the most part, but have become more strongly in favor ever since conservatives switched sides. It is really silly.

PS. Also, right wingers seem to be acting as if liberals are just acting superior out of the blue. This thread started with Trinnity and Flounder listing a group of smart liberals, and saying they would never allow such moronic trolls to judge them. All the intelligence talk has simply been backlash from that nonsense. You cannot expect liberals to be attacked in that fashion, and then pretend as if those attacks are justified and accurate.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). I think you are an excellent poster Frogger, you know that, but your greatest flaw is that you are blind to the flaws of your fellow right wing posters. The insulting language originated from the right, NOT THE LEFT. It started with Trinnity and Flounder attacking posters like Teamosil, Catch, TFM, and a few others calling them trolls unfit to judge brilliant people such as themselves. All the hostility has stemmed from those moronic posts at the very start of this thread. I am sorry, but I know many posters on the left are trolls and many are stupid. However when some people have the audacity to claim Teamosil is an ignorant troll incapable of judging them in all their greatness, you must be able to understand how that would be objectionable, and how that would lead to such a defensive tone among liberal posts. So get off your high horse, it is your side in the wrong here, NOT OURS!!

PS. Or at the very least, your side who started the wrong, and who are just as much in the wrong.

 

I have never even opened one of those threads. Is it anything like that bar and grill thingie? Because that place is a cesspool. Though Gypzy's involvement from time to time does increase the average IQ by about half. I had never even opened one of those threads either, until I saw she had posted a few weeks back. She is capable of holding her own against any liberal on this forum, and some of my most interesting debates on forums were one on one vs Gypzy about issues related to the Middle East. So while liberals keep implying no conservatives could keep up, they are wrong. Many conservatives could keep up, it just so happens that most of the very smart conservatives are turned off by the trolling and moronic nature of the average conservative at this forum, so they don't stick around. Or don't come around very often.

 

Some folks would like to have a venue for more formalized debate. So far so good. But debating requires more than passing familiarity with the rules of evidence if the debate is to be interesting and fair. Who will train the members and judges on the application of the rules of evidence?

 

We're currently hammering away at a pretty clear point system for judging that puts lots of pressure on criteria format vs. opinion. I had a chance to research how some other sites were doing this with success, and we'll be posting the point system once it's complete and agreed upon.

 

Depending on how that turns out, I will probably withdraw myself from both the debating, and from judging. That is to say, if it is broad categories like:

Accuracy: 15%
Persuasiveness: 30%
Creativity: 20%
Respectfulness: 5%
Continuity: 15%
Sourcing: 15%

Or

1st Proposition: 30%
2nd Proposition: 30%
3rd Proposition: 30%
Closing Argument: 10%

I would support it, since that allows for flexibility in the judging, though I would be less interested in the latter format. Assuming, of course, that both would have accompanying explanations.

However if it is very specific like:

Content
5 points

Themes: Arguments centered around one or more core themes. __/1 points
Arguments: Points were persuasive and easy to understand. __/1 point
Explanations: Content was explained in a complete and logical way. __/1 point
Evidence: Sufficient evidence and example used to support arguments. __/2 points

__/5


Refutation
5 points

Completeness: Clash was complete, covering every relevant point. __/2
Prioritization: Refutation focused more heavily on most important issues. __/1
Effectiveness: Clash successfully exposed flaws in the opponent’s points. __/2

__/5


Organization
5 points

Introduction: Introduction effectively presented core themes of the debate. __/1
Conclusion: Conclusion wrapped up and brought together case logically. __/1
Structure: Used clear structure that broke the case down into logical parts. __/1
Flow: Within each point, speaker had a clear and logical flow. __/1
Transitions: Smooth transitions used when moving between points. __/1

__/5


Procedure
5 points

Process: Debater followed the correct procedure for the style of debate. __/2
Courtesy: Debater was respectful and courteous to everyone in the room. __/1
Questions: Strong, targeted questions were asked of the other team. __/1
Answers: Complete and effective answers provided to questions. __/1

__/5


Total Score
20 points

<12 points: Unprepared; did not fulfill role in the round.
12 to 13 points: Prepared and thoughtful, but significant shortcomings.
14 to 15 points: An average score; arguments presented reasonably well.
16 to 17 points: An excellent performance; clearly stood out in the round.
18 points: Reserved for a top&#8208;notch performance in every area of debate.
19 points: A very rare score reserved for a world champion class debater.
20 points: The debater is perfect; no debater should receive this score.

__/20

I would not want to be involved on either end. As a judge, I'm less interested, since I'm filling out a form, and not able to properly analyze how they debated and presented their arguments, and as a participant, I would feel it too restrictive, and formulaic. Presenting a good debate loses the appeal, if the quality of the debate is so restricted.

 

FactChecker
Your specific/detailed system mirrors ours to a degree, as ours may be more condensed in order to simplify the process for judges. We'll speak more on this.

 

I am curious as to who, is appointing these "judges" and how they are selecting these "judges".

Is it to be an equal split between liberal and conservative.

What about the other parties being represented in some manner? I know some don't like to admit or realize this, but there does exist more political parties within just the U.S. than the Dems and the Repubs.

 

Once a challenge is accepted, we'll ask if they'd like judges for the debate. If so, we'll randomly choose judges from a volunteer pool (assuming that's the option we go with) which would allow participants to work with me or another mod via pm to discuss any disagreements with those chosen at random in order to form a mutual fix, or the participants are permitted to work together to agree upon who will judge... and come to the challenge with the agreed names.

The options we're gearing toward wouldn't limit the variety of viewpoints/parties visible here. We're also trying to push home that the point of judging these instances isn't purely about the topic (which creates serious hurdles bias wise) but more about the debate itself. We're trying to identify aspects related to the debate that are mutual in understanding... more along the lines of professionalism, format, flow, source credibility, etc. vs. who's right and who's wrong in subjective topics. Shiva addresses this better than I do:

I believe that many don't understand "debate" in the context of how it's formally used. It isn't about the topic but instead about the presentation of the arguments. How is the topic addressed, are valid arguments and rebuttals provided, and is supportive documentation for the arguments offered.

We could take an example of the Earth revolving around the sun for example. While we all know that the Earth revolves around the sun if the proponent of that fails to establish evidence that the Earth is revolving around the sun while the opponent demonstates that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West then the opponent would win the debate.

The moderators are working on judging criteria based upon formal debate and we will share that once we hammer out some of the details. In the end the topic itself shouldn't really matter and certainly the debate itself cannot be judges based upon the topic but instead on how the members address the topic in the debate. The best debates often require the participants to switch sides in the middle but that might be too challenging for most.​

 

WHAT? Accuracy 15%?

At least it'd be a step up from regular debate...

 

I agree that we have to sift through a lot of dross to get to the refined metal but I am willing to do that. As a fierce defender of free speech, I am not willing to say that certain people (those I judge of a high enough caliber) are worthy posters and certain other people (those I judge to be poor posters) are not worthy. What makes a good post is at least partly subjective. As a conservative, while I recognize certain conservative oriented posts as being little more than blather and noise, I tend to see more liberal oriented posts in that light. Mark it up to human nature. We tend to be more forgiving of those who agree with our point of view.

Having said that, even though I see more of what I personally feel are poor posts by liberals, I am not willing to weed them out. This is an open forum and everyone should have the right to be heard, not just those of whose posts I approve.

As a conservative, not a neo-conservative but a conservative, I want the least amount of government interference in private lives as is possible. That desire extends to the governing of this site. I want moderators to be as unobtrusive as possible, doing only those things that are necessary for the smooth running of the site. That does not include excluding people from freely posting in any and every thread. It is not the debate that I object to but the exclusionary format of the debate. I would be in favor of allowing extraneous posts to be removed from certain threads if the threads were first identified as ones in which serious, fact backed argument was required and from which all bloviating posts would be removed.

I am not going to identify the posters by name because that would be against the terms of service, but certain liberal posters have continually and continuously posted how liberals are intellectually superior to conservatives. The funny thing is, most of those so posting are those I personally consider to be on the lower rung of qualified posters as shown by the totality of their posts.

As always, I enjoy posting with you, even when we disagree. There is a certain brotherhood among we historians.

 

Yeah in deedy.

 

YOU are an outright LIAR.

1) I NEVER said they're morons. I've NEVER called any member of this forum a moron.

2) I didn't call them smart.

3) I didn't say I wouldn't allow them to judge me. I said if they were judges the judging couldn't be fair.

Stop telling lies. It destroys your credibility.

.

 

Your premise assumes that folks, smart folks like myself, can not judge on argument based on how well one side does, the quality of the argument they put forth.

You know, in forensics societies, arguments are actually judged on their merits. Folks do not necessarily get to pick which side of the argument they will be on.

Some interesting standards I found. Check out the first one.

http://theacademyolp.org/Forensics/General Standards for Judging Forensics.htm

These categories correspond to the categories for judging on the ballots.

1. INTERPRETATION

Was the speaker able to portray the contents of his/her selection: i.e., did he/she exhibit emotional and intellectual understanding of the selection and did the total performance make clear the theme or central idea of the selection?

Appropriate feeling? Sustained emotion? Vivid characterization (if appropriate)? Vivid situations?

2. USE OF VOICE

Does the speaker use his/her voice to bring out the variety and subtle differences of mood in the selection? Can you distinguish between the different characters in the selections by the speaker's use of voice? Can you visualize the setting described? Does the use of voice invite your involvement and call on your imagination? Does the student speak as though he/she actually is a part of the situation described? Was the voice audible? Were the rate of the speaking and articulation clear and appropriate for the selection?

3. APPROPRIATE EYE CONTACT

Does the speaker look at the audience? The kind and amount of eye contact may vary according to what is appropriate for the category and the selection. Judges should especially realize that "appropriate eye contact" in the Drama competition does not necessarily mean that the speaker looks at the audience, but instead may mean that she establishes the location of a character or characters by looking back and forth to fixed spots, especially when the selection as a dialogue between two or more characters. If the speaker does create the sense of different characters in different locations, even without looking directly at the audience, the judge should give him/her a good score in this category.

4. POISE AND PHYSICAL PRESENTATION

Controlled movement? Poise? Is the posture appropriate? Facial expression? Did the physical performance suit the selection? Did he/she underplay and suggest rather than use action that was overdone? Did the speaker's movement seem natural or did it distract from the performance?

5. MEMORIZATION

How well did the speaker memorize the selection?

NOTE: This category is not included in the judging

 

Everything I said was true, you may lie all you want, but anyone who saw your post knows better.

 

I would consider debating or judging one on one. However, time and substance of the debates would need to be understood before it would be considered.

If time is restricted it would be necessary to construct the debate before hand or the debate would quickly become full of veiled insult and ridicules substance.

 

Would you mind expanding on this point, please?

 

It all depends on the type of debate you wish to have. I have read somewhere that each debate must be carried out within 5 days of the invite. I would gather that each debate would be carried out in the fullness of the forum rules and intentions of the reason that the forum was founded for.

IF the debate is carried out in this forums structure it would become necessary to address each point as they are incurred. When this has become apparent around the board and others are expected to answer the points raised, at times this has raised responses that are more or less just pointless and some times simply insulting. This type of debate, tends to be fast moving and with far better prepared debaters can be very enlightening. But as you can see has some very serious drawbacks.

IF you simply want someone to post their opinion, back with very reliable sources to support those views (as most official organised debates) then it becomes necessary to construct ones points before the debate and hope it address the issue to the satisfaction of the judges. Due to the fact that the judges have usually a predisposed position to a topic it more or less becomes a judgement of how the debate is carried out and not to the subject of the debate. I gather this is not the intention of this idea.

I had gathered the intention of this was to have issues debated to have the stance of the topic considered rather than reflect on the debaters. So to win a debate it would be considered that if the points raised where to influence the judges to one side of the debate or to the other irregardless of the predisposition ( a very hard thing to do) it would be necessary to have a debate where all points raised are considered by both debaters. This means it is necessary to have a debate that is of my first point of type of debate, which falls into danger if a time limit is imposed to respond in refute or support of points.

First of all I do not consider myself as a great debater so no matter if I was invited I would have to face off with a similar aptitude debater. This would make the debate rather boring and I would suggest drag down the value of this part of the forum. IF the Type of debate was of the second type it is very necessary to match two debaters of equal ability. This would create far more work for the moderators that is (not to have a shot) is far too short to be delving around the list of members to find.

I hope you understand what I am trying to put forward.

 

Actually, it is... as we're gearing more toward the idea of judging the debate itself (rather than the topic) in order to filter out the possibility of bias existent in a purely topic-based judgement... all this assuming the participants opt for judges before the debate begins.

Completely. Thank you for this... it's a great help.

 

I think 1 on 1 debates are a fine idea, though I thought that is sort of the point of posting messages on someone's page.