GameBanshee Forums

@Sleep: Aren't we six - I thought Georgi was in as well?

My idea with arguing in pairs, what that the pair would argue against each other, ie pro- and against something specific, or argue two different standpoints in the same issue. Is that what you mean two, Sleepo?

If we it do this way, Sleep comes up with debate topics and he (perhaps together with one or more other independant persons) decides the pairings and the results. The topics we debate should not be within the area of our expertise since that is unfair - (with the possible exception of a HLD and Georgi pairing, since I believe they both have degrees in history). I think it would be more fun if we argued for things which aren't our real opinions, it is more challenging that way.

I am a little big against Frogus and Sleep regarding the "cup" format, since that means a person who looses the first debate is then out until or if we start a new series of debates. I am more for a series format where all meet all - if we want to crown a winner, we can count points instead, for instance like in football: 3 for victory, 1 for draw, 0 for loss.

A preset number of post and words will be necessary, otherwise the debates will go on forever

A question: are we playing clean or dirty, ie should we argue correctly and follow the rules of true debate, or can we use rethorics and logical fallacies?

A helpful link regarding what is a valid argument and not:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Please don't pay any attention to the fact that the list is made by an atheistic orginasation, the classification in the same as is generally used in logics and debate concerning any topic. If somebody really doubts the reliability of this list, I can dig up another at some other site (the philosophy.net probably has one).

Sniffs around, trying to figure out what these people are doing.

OK, I found one at a philosophy site, the format is a bit more inconvienient than the one on infidels.org, but for those who prefer, here is an alternative list, with a good explanation of what a fallacy is.

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html

@BS: Do I hear a ghostly voice from the other side? We are preparing for an argument-game - personally, I will argue for the temporary introduction of death penalty to internet quacks here on SYM.

really? I would hate to be on the opposite side of that issue with you............uh......I just remembered, I left the water running...

Originally posted by C Elegans
@HLD: ROFL I'll stuff my hairpiece down Ode's throat

*Readies the tartar sauce*

@BS-Join me, we'll have an all-SLURR team.

<Minerva walks in with 6 packs of lager and a large packet of popcorn, then sits in the corner, waiting for the fight to begin with excitement...>

*sits down two seats from Minerva, puts his feet up on the seat in front and eyes up a lager*

Hey i missed this

i am used to arguing for ridiculous things so if you got room for one more.

otherwise i will sit next to minerva - seems like she knows what she is doing. Congrats on you new home by the way - looks like it will be cool.

Sign me up as well if there is place.

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Sleep: Aren't we six - I thought Georgi was in as well?

I am not sure whether she is or not, i suppose we will have to confirm that, depending on that we could include Tom, or we could just hope to get another 1 after Tom...

My idea with arguing in pairs, what that the pair would argue against each other, ie pro- and against something specific, or argue two different standpoints in the same issue. Is that what you mean two, Sleepo?

Well i thought originally of teams but that seems to be discarded so yes, each person would argue in two's, one side argues one side and then swaps the arguement around so they argue the other point, i will work on some rules tonight, put them through a brainstorm (all of you) and see what we come up with...as i say feel free to come up with other parameters and i will consider it

If we it do this way, Sleep comes up with debate topics and he (perhaps together with one or more other independant persons) decides the pairings and the results. The topics we debate should not be within the area of our expertise since that is unfair - (with the possible exception of a HLD and Georgi pairing, since I believe they both have degrees in history). I think it would be more fun if we argued for things which aren't our real opinions, it is more challenging that way.

Agreed, any suggestions, i am thinking Yshania at the moment, any others? Yep, i think i already covered this. Agreed.

I am a little big against Frogus and Sleep regarding the "cup" format, since that means a person who looses the first debate is then out until or if we start a new series of debates. I am more for a series format where all meet all - if we want to crown a winner, we can count points instead, for instance like in football: 3 for victory, 1 for draw, 0 for loss.

Fair enough, i think we will all have to agree on the format, i will include this idea in the rules and then we will come to a democratic answer, if at any point anyone isn't happy, just give me/us a shout and we will be accommodating.

A preset number of post and words will be necessary, otherwise the debates will go on forever

Agreed.

A question: are we playing clean or dirty, ie should we argue correctly and follow the rules of true debate, or can we use rethorics and logical fallacies?

As far as i am concerned you can use whatever tactic you like, it will just mean extra silliness , i might give you bad marks if it is absolutely ludicrous though

If tom is added, sign me up as well.

Originally posted by C Elegans
A question: are we playing clean or dirty, ie should we argue correctly and follow the rules of true debate, or can we use rethorics and logical fallacies?

Can we also resort to character assassination, bribing the adjudicator, circular logic and mock indignation?

Originally posted by CM
If tom is added, sign me up as well.

Right so we have:

Ode
CE
Frogus
HLD
Dottie
Georgi (Maybe?)
Tom
CM

That would make eight and would be all we need to diversify things, we will have to wait for Georgi's okay...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Agreed, any suggestions, i am thinking Yshania at the moment, any others? Yep, i think i already covered this. Agreed.

thanks for the vote! I am happy to help where I can, CE may be able to provide a reference re my abilities as an assistant - I am sure

Originally posted by HighLordDave


Can we also resort to character assassination, bribing the adjudicator, circular logic and mock indignation?

Character assasination is fine as long as it abides by forum rules and everyone is okay with it. Bribing adjudicator wont work (naked picks of the ladies might ) Circular logic would be fine, just as long as the discusser realises we might mark them down for it. Mock indignation is an important component and entirely necessary

I might also come up with fields and percentage scores in those fields, just so my summaries can be classified...thoughts?

@ysh, glad to hear it, i think we should be able to come up with some suitable topics, i will pass the rules by you when i do them tonight

@Sleep - ok fine just let me know how you think I can help...

<edit> will we have a separate debate and spam thread?

Originally posted by Yshania
@Sleep - ok fine just let me know how you think I can help...

<edit> will we have a separate debate and spam thread?

Will do when i get some time to organise things...i am getting back on with work soon...

I think that would be a good idea, this will probably be the spam thread and we create another one with the rules and then the discussion.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Will do when i get some time to organise things...i am getting back on with work soon...

I think that would be a good idea, this will probably be the spam thread and we create another one with the rules and then the discussion.

*tut tut* shirking as usual?

Ok then

Originally posted by Yshania
*tut tut* shirking as usual?

You know me...*goes off to work*

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


You know me...*goes off to work*

LOL! See you later!