Author
|
Topic: Debate Challenge #2 (Read 1469 times) |
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
 |
Debate Challenge #2
« on: 2003-10-01 01:37:55 » |
 |
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who participated in the first debate challenge. Now, I'd like to propose round two. This is my plan for the Debate Challenge #2. Any valid/relevant suggestions for changes welcome. Here goes....
1. This time around, only four people will participate in this debate. The teams, Team Darwin and Team Hypatia, will have two members each. The first four to sign up(as seen on the bbs) will be accepted.
2. The debate will be closed to everyone except the four participants. The debate will take place on the bbs. This is NOT an IRC(chat) debate.
3. The participants will not know who their debating partner/opponents are when they sign up. They will be assigned a debating partner. They will have no choice regarding the position(defending or opposing) they will take.
4. The lack of choice should enable the participants to craft an argument for both sides. As this isnt going to be a policy debate, but rather one of the parlimentary style, it is most definitely possible for both sides to come up with a rational and logical argument. It is not about closely held beliefs. It is not about personal choices. It is purely a debate based on how a case, *any* case, can be argued rationally and logically.
5. The partners are required to co-ordinate and communicate with each other. The two teams need to develop a strategy to ensure that their team's argument is sound. This can be achieved through email or even irc. CoV's official chat channel is #virus in irc.lucifer.com. If anyone is unfamiliar with irc, please enquire.
The objective is to introduce members to each other and encourage them to mingle their skills and/or polish them. You can be sure that we will be matching strangers and pitting friends against each other when it comes to team formation. There will be no points and no other system for grading the debate. And YES, there will be a winning team and there will be prizes. Dont count on a gold plated medal, it will probably be something thats worth less than the cost of postage. But hey! dont go bitching...we are just getting started. Of course, if anyone wishes to sponser the winning prize they are welcome to do so. It will be most appreciated.
6. The debate will follow a strict timetable so as to ensure to all the team members sufficient time to communicate and strategise with each other.
7. All team members should participate fully. The members can discuss and share their debating points, but each member should present the debate in his/her own style. All four participants should 'take the floor' at least once. This will enable polishing the writing skills of everyone involved and ensure that everyone gets a chance to present the argument in any way they see fit. We want everyone to get a chance.
8. There will be three rounds. The introduction, rebuttal and conclusion. The teams are required to select their representatives(i.e. the one who will write the discussed points/issues in his/her own language and style), one each for the first two rounds. The conclusion may be presented by either. As to which of the two members will present the conclusion, that is an agreement between the team members.
9. Debate schedule as follows:
Saturday, October 4th: Participants will be assigned to their teams and informed of their debating partners.
Tuesday, October 7th: Team Darwin will present opening statement.
Friday, October 10th: Team Hypatia will present opening statement.
Tuesday, October 14th: Team Hypatia rebuts Team Darwin.
Friday, October 17th: Team Darwin rebuts Team Hypatia.
(rebuttal is applicable only for views presented during the first round. Team Darwin should not use this round to respond to Team Hypatia's rebuttal)
Tuesday, October 21st: Team Hypatia makes its concluding statements.
Friday, October 24th: Team Darwin makes its concluding statements.
(the team members of Darwin and Hypatia must select amongst themselves one person to present the conclusion)
October 25th-October 30th: the floor is open to the public. The audience can step in and make their pronouncements.
Winning team will be announced on November 1st.
I selected a light and non controversial topic for this debate. Hopefully, if we like this exercise, we can bring in more interesting topics. Right now, we are just testing the system and hence the simplicity of the topic. Debate Challenge #x will be a topic where evidence, quoted materials and online references will be required. We will move on to more formal debates as we get more comfortable and familiar with the rules and form of debate. We may even have three members per team depending on interest.
Debate challenge #2, being "light", can be informal in style. Witty, humourous exchanges and creative techniques are welcome while ad hominem and slander will not be tolerated. Please employ logic in your arguments. Follow the rules of logic. Scour the net, read your books, do whatever is necessary to enrich your debating skills. Since we have no 'time limit' online, we will have to stick to a 'word limit' of a minimum of 400 words and a maximum of 700 words. If either team fails to make their presentation, the opposition will be winner by default. Reasonable requests for a second round of rebuttal will be honoured.
And oh..the topic:
Television retards intellect.
Team Darwin will debate for the statement. Team Hypatia will debate against it.
The team members and team assignment will be announced later.
Thats all. Any other thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
outlawpoet
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 2
Reputation: 7.36
Rate outlawpoet
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-01 12:15:32 » |
|
Um, I think such a tourney would be very interesting, but I think an enumeration of the debating style, format and parameters would be very helpful. Many different debating formats and etiquettes exist, and we could either use an existing one, or adapt one to our purposes.
|
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
--Jeremy Hardy, /The Guardian/ (UK)
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-01 12:24:53 » |
|
google threw this:
http://debate.uvm.edu/
http://debate.uvm.edu/learn2.html seems informative enough even though the site design seems a little ..err..interesting..
i posted these rules and format off the cuff and for a simple structure to get us started. well thought debates and civil discussions are very rare in online forums. we dont want to be a stiff, formal nook on the net..at the same time, we dont want chaos running wild(as it usually does in a text only forum like a bbs). also, we hope to ensure and prove here on the cov that logic and rational argument can solve any difference of opinion rather than knee jerk, PMSy rants. of course, being on the cautious side...the topic is very 'light'....the idea is to not inflame passions...at least for now...
the first four who volunteer to take up the debate will be the participants for debate challenge #2. all you have to do is reply to this thread mentioning clearly that you'd like to participate in the debate challenge!
|
|
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #3 on: 2003-10-01 14:30:16 » |
|
What about team Rocket and Team Pokemon?
Mermaid <hidden@lucifer.com> wrote:
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who participated in the first debate challenge. Now, I'd like to propose round two. This is my plan for the Debate Challenge #2. Any valid/relevant suggestions for changes welcome. Here goes....
1. This time around, only four people will participate in this debate. The teams, Team Darwin and Team Hypatia, will have two members each. The first four to sign up(as seen on the bbs) will be accepted.
2. The debate will be closed to everyone except the four participants. The debate will take place on the bbs. This is NOT an IRC(chat) debate.
3. The participants will not know who their debating partner/opponents are when they sign up. They will be assigned a debating partner. They will have no choice regarding the position(defending or opposing) they will take.
4. The lack of choice should enable the participants to craft an argument for both sides. As this isnt going to be a policy debate, but rather one of the parlimentary style, it is most definitely possible for both sides to come up with a rational and logical argument. It is not about closely held beliefs. It is not about personal choices. It is purely a debate based on how a case, *any* case, can be argued rationally and logically.
5. The partners are required to co-ordinate and communicate with each other. The two teams need to develop a strategy to ensure that their team's argument is sound. This can be achieved through email or even irc. CoV's official chat channel is #virus in irc.lucifer.com. If anyone is unfamiliar with irc, please enquire.
The objective is to introduce members to each other and encourage them to mingle their skills and/or polish them. You can be sure that we will be matching strangers and pitting friends against each other when it comes to team formation. There will be no points and no other system for grading the debate. And YES, there will be a winning team and there will be prizes. Dont count on a gold plated medal, it will probably be something thats worth less than the cost of postage. But hey! dont go bitching...we are just getting started. Of course, if anyone wishes to sponser the winning prize they are welcome to do so. It will be most appreciated.
6. The debate will follow a strict timetable so as to ensure to all the team members sufficient time to communicate and strategise with each other.
7. All team members should participate fully. The members can discuss and share their debating points, but each member should present the debate in his/her own style. All four participants should 'take the floor' at least once. This will enable polishing the writing skills of everyone involved and ensure that everyone gets a chance to present the argument in any way they see fit. We want everyone to get a chance.
8. There will be three rounds. The introduction, rebuttal and conclusion. The teams are required to select their representatives(i.e. the one who will write the discussed points/issues in his/her own language and style), one each for the first two rounds. The conclusion may be presented by either. As to which of the two members will present the conclusion, that is an agreement between the team members.
9. Debate schedule as follows:
Saturday, October 4th: Participants will be assigned to their teams and informed of their debating partners.
Tuesday, October 7th: Team Darwin will present opening statement.
Friday, October 10th: Team Hypatia will present opening statement.
Tuesday, October 14th: Team Hypatia rebuts Team Darwin.
Friday, October 17th: Team Darwin rebuts Team Hypatia.
(rebuttal is applicable only for views presented during the first round. Team Darwin should not use this round to respond to Team Hypatia's rebuttal)
Tuesday, October 21st: Team Hypatia makes its concluding statements.
Friday, October 24th: Team Darwin makes its concluding statements.
(the team members of Darwin and Hypatia must select amongst themselves one person to present the conclusion)
October 25th-October 30th: the floor is open to the public. The audience can step in and make their pronouncements.
Winning team will be announced on November 1st.
I selected a light and non controversial topic for this debate. Hopefully, if we like this exercise, we can bring in more interesting topics. Right now, we are just testing the system and hence the simplicity of the topic. Debate Challenge #x will be a topic where evidence, quoted materials and online references will be required. We will move on to more formal debates as we get more comfortable and familiar with the rules and form of debate. We may even have three members per team depending on interest.
Debate challenge #2, being "light", can be informal in style. Witty, humourous exchanges and creative techniques are welcome while ad hominem and slander will not be tolerated. Please employ logic in your arguments. Follow the rules of logic. Scour the net, read your books, do whatever is necessary to enrich your debating skills. Since we have no 'time limit' online, we will have to stick to a 'word limit' of a minimum of 400 words and a maximum of 700 words. If either team fails to make their presentation, the opposition will be winner by default. Reasonable requests for a second round of rebuttal will be honoured.
And oh..the topic:
Television retards intellect.
Team Darwin will debate for the statement. Team Hypatia will debate against it.
The team members and team assignment will be announced later.
Thats all. Any other thoughts?
----
This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #4 on: 2003-10-01 15:08:22 » |
|
Given Mermaid's reaction to my last positive response to one of her suggestions, the fact that she knows that I have been involved in debating for years (JCs, Toastmasters, University, Forum and managing Interschool and IRC debates) yet has not approached me, that I don't want to seem to be appropriating or treading on her (generally good) idea, I am reluctant to step up to the firing line, but I think that somebody who knows a bit about debating needs to raise a point of information here. As nobody else has spoken up, I reluctantly intervene.
Mermaid, when you say, "Parlimentary rules" do you mean all 277 pages (excluding the index) of the current Robert's rules as revised (ISBN 0-7607-1646-3 or (cheaper) ISBN 0-7607-1734-6), or do you mean something else? It seems to me that in establishing your "Fishy Format" for "Blindfolded Players" you have already bypassed Robert's on a fair number of rules and made others irrelevant. So how do debaters and viewers know which rules apply and which do not?
If you do mean Robert's rules, who will chair, and how will you apply the rules in a forum where there is no control over who can speak, in what order, what they can say, when they can say it, and, where so far as I can see, nobody knows what rules will apply*?
As a further point of information, people tend to speak at a rate of 180 to 200 words per minute, and this might be a good multiplier to use when extrapolating debating time into a "word-limit".
Hermit
(Who isn't volunteering to debate with an unknown partner against unknown opponents with an unknown chair of unknown capability under unknown rules - and who will not risk arguing the "wrong side" of a motion on a topic where (as Mermaid knows) he has strong opinions, in a forum generally incapable of separating argument from the speaker.)
*Hermit notes that the format for formal debate per Robert's rules is included in the FAQ: #debate channel on irc.lucifer.net:6667, which also has links to the 1915 version of Robert's Rules (link checked and active 2003-10-01), which might give you some idea of what is involved in formal debating.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #5 on: 2003-10-01 16:53:53 » |
|
[Hermit]Mermaid, when you say, "Parlimentary rules" do you mean all 277 pages (excluding the index) of the current Robert's rules as revised (ISBN 0-7607-1646-3 or (cheaper) ISBN 0-7607-1734-6), or do you mean something else?
[Mermaid]Something else. I did a quick search on the types of debate and came up with the word, actually. Clearly, there seems to be two types of debate. Policy and parlimentary debate. We are not playing the first game.
[Hermit]If you do mean Robert's rules, who will chair, and how will you apply the rules in a forum where there is no control over who can speak, in what order, what they can say, when they can say it, and, where so far as I can see, nobody knows what rules will apply*?
[Mermaid]I suppose these are Mermaid's rules?
[Hermit]As a further point of information, people tend to speak at a rate of 180 to 200 words per minute, and this might be a good multiplier to use when extrapolating debating time into a "word-limit".
[Mermaid]Thats ok. Then they will have to finish this between 2 mts and 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #6 on: 2003-10-01 17:14:30 » |
|
My reasons:
The primary objective of this little project is not conduct and chair a formal debate. We have no idea about the potential of the group because somewhere along the line, we decided to take turns between playing the audience to a rant and play the one who is making the rant amidst insulting others.
The reason people cannot choose the topic is because topics like 'television retards intellect' are so casual that it is so easy to take either stance. It is also possible to argue for both cases. As the first installment of the debate exercise proved, people are perfectly capable of making arguments for AND against the same topic. Now, this is exciting. That we can rationally tear our own argument is something worthy of pride. A little suspense is good for one's health.
Why cant people choose their opponents or partners? My respone: sure, they can...but why cant we try without the players choosing their own partners? As a group, we should be able to interact and communicate with *everyone* in the group. I suspect that will ease the friction and sabotage the actions that keep the group from ever growing closer. They will know their partner and opponents three days before they get to present their case, anyways. I'd say that its perfectly reasonable to get to know your team assignment and opponents three days before the first presentation. I have been to debates where the topic is assigned just minutes before the debate commences. This exercise may even introduce unknowns to each other. For example, I dont think prometheus and Michelle know each other too well. (as an example..no pressure, prometheus and Michelle.) But if they sign up and I (my rules, you see...not Mr.Roberts') pair them together against the other team, I am sure they will be introduced to each other. I ask this of everyone in this forum, we are supposed to be this 'church of virus'..right?..how many people in this group do you *really* know? If not the entire group..just take the reputation system..those signed up in the rep. system..do you know the other 48? How can there be *any* glue to bind us together if we all insist on playing the audience ALL the time?
I am not saying that my debate format is the most clever or that its the most accurate...in the formal sense even... But then again, it wasnt intended to be that way. I really have no idea about most members of cov. I dont know about their capabilities, in debate or otherwise. It is highly unlikely that many here will be willing to jump straight into formal debate with Robert's rules. Parlimentary debate, as far as I have read, requires minimal rules and even less training. It is always possible to train people with the rules of the formal debate, but it is not that easy to get people in a group involved in a group activity.
If there is no interest, I will simply abandon this and try again a few weeks later. But I am not going to stick to a strict and rigid set of formal debate rules AND introduce topics that are likely to inflame passions and flame wars. We do have a history. Its not bad all the time, but it can be better. Baby steps and miles to walk. If you stumble on the first step and stop walking, its unlikely that you'll ever reach the destination. My two cents. Take it or leave it.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #7 on: 2003-10-02 00:06:54 » |
|
This project is killed. I am not fit to continue this because I, obviously, dont know the appropriate meaning and definition of the term 'parlimentary style'. I'll do my bit when I am learned enough for this esteemed group.
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #8 on: 2003-10-02 07:31:37 » |
|
Dear Mermaid,
Don't get discouraged by nitpicking and negativity. I think your idea is
excellent. I think the guiding theme ought to be us sharpening our claws for
the big battles of the future against likely competitors. Vision should
guide us here.
For what it is worth, I am in.
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Mermaid
Sent: 02 October 2003 05:07
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Debate Challenge #2
This project is killed. I am not fit to continue this because I, obviously,
dont know the appropriate meaning and definition of the term 'parlimentary
style'. I'll do my bit when I am learned enough for this esteemed group.
----
This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=293
99>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #9 on: 2003-10-02 09:34:59 » |
|
[Mermaid]
This project is killed. I am not fit to continue this because I,
obviously, dont know the appropriate meaning and definition of the term
'parlimentary style'. I'll do my bit when I am learned enough for this
esteemed group.
[rhinoceros]
Sad to hear this, but understandable. Although I could not afford the
time to get involved in the project at this time, I am always glad to
see things moving and virians getting a chance to hone their skills.
Thanks for the time you put into it.
I think the virians whose word counts more should make a habit of
stepping back and taking a look in the context of the community, and
decide on a proper attitude before getting into specific points.
*Especially* the viarians whose word counts more. It is strange, but it
seems that when their response is perceived as disapproval, it counts
more than the disapproval of many "less involved" members of the
community.
____________________________________________________________________
http://www.freemail.gr - δωρεάν υπηρεσία ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου.
http://www.freemail.gr - free email service for the Greek-speaking.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #10 on: 2003-10-02 13:01:11 » |
|
> [Mermaid]
> This project is killed. I am not fit to continue this because I,
> obviously, dont know the appropriate meaning and definition of the
term
> 'parlimentary style'. I'll do my bit when I am learned enough for this
> esteemed group.
[Blunderov]
Sorry to hear this. In view of the favourable reception perhaps you
might reconsider?
It would have been a good opportunity to illustrate the difference
between debate, the objective of which is to produce a winner, and
philososphy, the objective of which is to move nearer to the truth.
In the former, a charitable interpretation of an argument is
counterproductive and in the latter it is helpful.
May I urge you to take a charitable view of the Hermit's enquiry?
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #11 on: 2003-10-02 23:20:22 » |
|
I think Hermit's post is very hostile and full of malice. If you are going to defend that, then we are going to have to have a rather long and unpleasant chat about that. Please do not even go there. I dont want to hurt you. Really. It is what it is. Period. End of story. I am not going to let anyone make me see something in that nasty post that doesnt really exist in there.
That said, let me make it very clear that Hermit is neither significant nor relevant when it comes to my involvment with CoV. I have always had my doubts about CoV and I have come a long way since the time I thought that its a kooky bunch of Einstein wannabes. I am not going to be discouraged because Hermit disapproves of something.
However, I do NOT have the energy to co-ordinate this AND deal with Hermit's convoluted schemes. Experience tells me that it takes enormous time and even more energy when something has to be defended here. I simply do not have the energy to deal with multitasking at the moment. Even sandcastles take time to build, you know. I didnt sit in front of the computer and type that first post out in 30 seconds flat. There is nothing constructive about suggesting...what was it again?....277 pages of debating rules. There is nothing worthwhile to translate from his perception of the whole thing as 'Fishy Format'. I am taking it for what it is. A mean reaction to a very simple, well intended idea. Ok, so the idea isnt terribly brilliant for some, but its a start, for fucksakes. I cannot argue and defend my use of two words, Parlimentary Style. It would be a CRIMINAL waste of my time. I cannot even put 'Hermit's enquiry' and 'charitable' in the same sentence.
I set those dates and days of the week because I wanted to be around when I kickstart this. You might have noticed that the whole thing is spread over the entire month of October. The submissions are due on tuesdays and fridays. I took the liberty of setting it up according to my schedule and free time in order to lock and unlock the thread(apparently, the lock/unlock option in the bbs is a tad broken), mildly moderate if necessary and co-ordinate in case there is confusion re the rules. The idea was that once people get comfortable/familiar and if they like the idea, virian debates can be carried on their own on a skeletal set of rules with minimal moderation.
Its too much on my plate to defend my choice of words, sell the idea to the group after Hermit's ..err..helpful intervention, do the cheering bit, do the networking bit, clarify doubts, make changes in accordance to other genuinely helpful suggestions AND all this without changing the tuesday/friday cycle for the month of October. and oh yea..be polite too..got to watch my back for the disownment rules. got to watch my language, right? All this distrust within the group, the lack of openness when it comes to honest communication is making me very tense. I want to relax and enjoy my time here. I dont want to be defensive all the time. This isnt fun. This just isnt working for me, you know.
I had no doubt that there would be interest for such an idea as the debate challenge in the CoV. However, I had doubts about how effectively I communicated the idea. I expected people to want to tweak it a little bit here and a little bit there. I expected to clarify the participants queries. I expected suggestions for a change of topic if people did not particularly care for the topic. I expected to be questioned on why people wont know whether they are for/against the topic or their partner/opponents until three days before the debate starts by curious, but not rude members. I did NOT expect to substitute the entire thing with a 277 page BOOK on debate. I did NOT expect snide remarks. I did NOT expect to defend myself and what I designed as my pet project. I did NOT expect to be asked to take a charitable view of a very nasty man's enquiry.
I am not completely discouraged, but I am tired. I hope that people here will be kind enough to show interest again when this debate project is revived sometime in the near future. I have unlocked this thread again.
I have to confess that I was in a rather terrible mood last night when I killed this. I acted rather unkindly to other well meaning folks too. (You know who you are. My apologies) Also, it seems as if I might get busy even earlier than I thought. I'll be damned if I give up on Debate Challenge #2. But for now, I am pooped. I am done.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Debate Challenge #2
« Reply #12 on: 2003-10-03 00:01:41 » |
|
Additional thoughts and clarifications: I'd be thrilled if someone wants to adopt the debate challenge idea, if they have the time and think that this is a worthwhile project. On the other hand, as someone else suggested to me, there can be an IRC chat on the very same topic in which everyone can participate and set up an automatic process to implement a framework of rules so that regular virian debates can take place without a moderator's involvement. There need to be no Robert's rules or even Mermaid's rules. We will just create Virian Debate Rules. I did not set out to design my own system because I wanted to run it. I only thought that it would be quicker(and easier because i never argue with myself for more than five minutes) and mostly intended for it to be an experiment with refinements along the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
