Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 7, 2011 1:06:59 GMT -5
SimplyForgiven,June 11 2010,18:31]
Hi All,
I have been working on this idea all night, if you can please consider it and give me your thoughts. First off i want you all to know that in Texas, i am a professional debate judge. When i was in Highschool i worked on LD debate. When i graduated I worked as a Judge for some years for different high schools and was invited to judge at State. ( I didn’t go, didn’t have the time.) I have been recommended by many students and teachers as a fair judge.
Problem: What I see is, that there are many debates, most within the forum topics, uncontrollable, personal, and disorganized debates that cannot be controlled, no one knows what points were held, nor what points were refuted and dropped. very few that are in the debates section (which is more of a freestyle debate), where two people go one on one over subject, within a never ending cycle of going off topic, and no one knows what was held valid, or what wasn’t refuted. (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.)
Solution: Making a organized structure debates dedicated for this forum. No one loses in these debates. This isn’t about winning or losing a debate which is the fear of most people while debating. they are afraid of losing which this forum isn’t about losing but about learning. Therefore I offer a debate case format that allows a Chosen Judge (A professional judge chosen by the moderators or agreed upon by the debaters) between two debaters to simply state what points have been dropped, refuted, or held valid.
Summary: The Goal is to validate claims. In other words one has to present a case, and when the debate ends the Judge WILL NOT DECIDE A WINNER, but will decide what claims have been dropped or held valid. or agreed upon.
one debater might be left with one claim and the other with three. Therefore another debate may start or they may go further and discuss more about it in a Freestyle debate which has already been established.
Here are the two styles of debating.
CF debate - Christian Forum debate: which is a style where two individuals debate concerning a doctrinal idea, or any ideal related to Christianity. EX- Resolve: Jesus is God.
BIF Debate - Biblical Interpretation Forum debate: This style is for two individuals debating an interpretation off a scripture. The Two focus on making claims to support their interpretation. (Note: there is no resolve.)
This also could be done in teams, but that’s another issue. First let’s see if this can happen.
The debate cases and rules are similar to LD debates but the focus is more like CX debates which are more about evidence than anything else. Remember the Goal is to validate claims.
Here is the Format of the debates:
Note: Word document page, font 12.
There is no values or VC in these debates.
Scriptures cannot be interpreted by what is not said unless it’s second by another verse.
CF Debate Format
1AC (first Affirmative Constructive) – 1 1/2 page= 1050 words
Intro:
Resolve:
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- what you’re proving
--Warrent- your evidence
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
>>V:
>>I: Interpretation of the verse and connection.
>>2nd (optional): another verse to second the original.
--Impact- Why this is important? Connection to claim.
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points and side of the resolve.
Cross Ex of the Aff by the Neg (CX-A)– 10 questions.
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
1NC (first Negative Constructive) – 2 pages= 1400words
Note: Neg can adopt Aff points.
Intro:
Resolve:
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- what your proving
--Warrent- your evidence
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
>>V:
>>I: Interpretation of the verse and connection.
>>2nd (optional): another verse to second the original.
--Impact- Why this is important? Connection to claim.
Attack: and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence
Conclude effectively.
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points and side of the resolve.
Cross Ex of the Neg by the Aff – 10 Questions
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
Be courteous
Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed – new evidence, analysis is ok
1AR (first Affirmative Rebuttal) - 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to the Neg Observations – show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions
Rebuild the Aff case.
NR (Negative Rebuttal) – 1 1/2 page.= 1050 words
Respond to latest Affirmative arguments
Make your final case to the Judge that the Neg position and claims and attacks on Aff points.
Summarize the debate and conclude effectively
2AR (second Affirmative Rebuttal) – 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to final Negative arguments
Summarize the debate
Conclude effectively.
Judge: Makes a ballot, based what claims are left valid from both sides and a Judge might give debate points for debating skill and grammar.
BIF debate
note: No resolve. based on biblical scrutiny. there is no Aff or Neg since there is no resolution.
Debaters are now interpreters and debate about their interpretations. (A-Interpreter VS. B-Interpreter )
1AIC (first A-Interpretation Constructive) – 1 1/2 page=1050 words
Biblical verse: the verse that needs to be interpreted
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- your interpretation
--Warrent- your evidence, other scriptures
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
--Connection-connection to claim.
. Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points.
Cross Ex of the A by the B (CX-A)– 10 questions.
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
1BIC (first B Interpretation Constructive) – 2 pages=1400 words
Note: B can adopt A points.
Biblical verse: the verse that needs to be interpreted
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- your interpretation
--Warrent- your evidence, other scriptures
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
--Connection-connection to claim.
Attack: and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence
Conclude effectively.
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points.
Cross Ex of the B by the A– 10 Questions
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
Be courteous
Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed – new evidence, analysis is ok (No new attacks)
1AIR (first A-Interpreter Rebuttal) - 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to the Neg Observations – show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions
Rebuild the Aff case.
BIR (B-Interpreter Rebuttal) – 1 1/2 page.=1050 words
Respond to latest Affirmative arguments
Make your final case to the Judge that the Neg position and claims and attacks on Aff points.
Summarize the debate and conclude effectively
2AIR (second A-Interpreter Rebuttal) – 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to final Negative arguments
Summarize the debate
Conclude effectively.
Judge: Makes a ballot, based what claims are left valid from both sides and a Judge might give debate points for debating skill and grammar.
In conclusion:
I hope that this can open up formal Debates between two individuals or teams of individuals which can be organized and instead of there being a winner or a loser, we become humble students of the word.
the benefits of this styles of debate is
1) gives opportunity for individuals to able to have a serious debate and opportunity to learn more.
2) any off topic comments or insults are disregarded by the Judge.
3) no more circle of arguments.
4) organization.
5) no winners or losers,
6) observers can see the points left valid after the debate.
7) helps get to the heart of the resolve.
8) helps the observer and the debater study more
9) We can see whats been refuted and whats not been refuted.
10) No more running away from arguing certain points.
For these reasons and more i hope that we can enact this type of debates.
I hope that Judges who are separate and chosen from the moderators and also chosen to participate in agreement from the debaters. or maybe we can raise polls and vote for judges.
I hope this idea which for me is very simple to enact because it does not have to change the forum in any way. its just organizational cases and a judge who has the authority to state whats been refuted and whats been held valid, and whats been dropped.
I hope all can see that this would be a great idea to help everyone simply understand each other in a formal organized debate.
Much love,
I offer my services as a judge.
Hi All,
I have been working on this idea all night, if you can please consider it and give me your thoughts. First off i want you all to know that in Texas, i am a professional debate judge. When i was in Highschool i worked on LD debate. When i graduated I worked as a Judge for some years for different high schools and was invited to judge at State. ( I didn’t go, didn’t have the time.) I have been recommended by many students and teachers as a fair judge.
Problem: What I see is, that there are many debates, most within the forum topics, uncontrollable, personal, and disorganized debates that cannot be controlled, no one knows what points were held, nor what points were refuted and dropped. very few that are in the debates section (which is more of a freestyle debate), where two people go one on one over subject, within a never ending cycle of going off topic, and no one knows what was held valid, or what wasn’t refuted. (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.)
Solution: Making a organized structure debates dedicated for this forum. No one loses in these debates. This isn’t about winning or losing a debate which is the fear of most people while debating. they are afraid of losing which this forum isn’t about losing but about learning. Therefore I offer a debate case format that allows a Chosen Judge (A professional judge chosen by the moderators or agreed upon by the debaters) between two debaters to simply state what points have been dropped, refuted, or held valid.
Summary: The Goal is to validate claims. In other words one has to present a case, and when the debate ends the Judge WILL NOT DECIDE A WINNER, but will decide what claims have been dropped or held valid. or agreed upon.
one debater might be left with one claim and the other with three. Therefore another debate may start or they may go further and discuss more about it in a Freestyle debate which has already been established.
Here are the two styles of debating.
CF debate - Christian Forum debate: which is a style where two individuals debate concerning a doctrinal idea, or any ideal related to Christianity. EX- Resolve: Jesus is God.
BIF Debate - Biblical Interpretation Forum debate: This style is for two individuals debating an interpretation off a scripture. The Two focus on making claims to support their interpretation. (Note: there is no resolve.)
This also could be done in teams, but that’s another issue. First let’s see if this can happen.
The debate cases and rules are similar to LD debates but the focus is more like CX debates which are more about evidence than anything else. Remember the Goal is to validate claims.
Here is the Format of the debates:
Note: Word document page, font 12.
There is no values or VC in these debates.
Scriptures cannot be interpreted by what is not said unless it’s second by another verse.
CF Debate Format
1AC (first Affirmative Constructive) – 1 1/2 page= 1050 words
Intro:
Resolve:
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- what you’re proving
--Warrent- your evidence
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
>>V:
>>I: Interpretation of the verse and connection.
>>2nd (optional): another verse to second the original.
--Impact- Why this is important? Connection to claim.
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points and side of the resolve.
Cross Ex of the Aff by the Neg (CX-A)– 10 questions.
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
1NC (first Negative Constructive) – 2 pages= 1400words
Note: Neg can adopt Aff points.
Intro:
Resolve:
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- what your proving
--Warrent- your evidence
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
>>V:
>>I: Interpretation of the verse and connection.
>>2nd (optional): another verse to second the original.
--Impact- Why this is important? Connection to claim.
Attack: and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence
Conclude effectively.
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points and side of the resolve.
Cross Ex of the Neg by the Aff – 10 Questions
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
Be courteous
Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed – new evidence, analysis is ok
1AR (first Affirmative Rebuttal) - 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to the Neg Observations – show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions
Rebuild the Aff case.
NR (Negative Rebuttal) – 1 1/2 page.= 1050 words
Respond to latest Affirmative arguments
Make your final case to the Judge that the Neg position and claims and attacks on Aff points.
Summarize the debate and conclude effectively
2AR (second Affirmative Rebuttal) – 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to final Negative arguments
Summarize the debate
Conclude effectively.
Judge: Makes a ballot, based what claims are left valid from both sides and a Judge might give debate points for debating skill and grammar.
BIF debate
note: No resolve. based on biblical scrutiny. there is no Aff or Neg since there is no resolution.
Debaters are now interpreters and debate about their interpretations. (A-Interpreter VS. B-Interpreter )
1AIC (first A-Interpretation Constructive) – 1 1/2 page=1050 words
Biblical verse: the verse that needs to be interpreted
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- your interpretation
--Warrent- your evidence, other scriptures
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
--Connection-connection to claim.
. Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points.
Cross Ex of the A by the B (CX-A)– 10 questions.
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
1BIC (first B Interpretation Constructive) – 2 pages=1400 words
Note: B can adopt A points.
Biblical verse: the verse that needs to be interpreted
Define Terms:
1-4Contentions:
--Claim- your interpretation
--Warrent- your evidence, other scriptures
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent.
--Connection-connection to claim.
Attack: and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence
Conclude effectively.
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points.
Cross Ex of the B by the A– 10 Questions
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
Be courteous
Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed – new evidence, analysis is ok (No new attacks)
1AIR (first A-Interpreter Rebuttal) - 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to the Neg Observations – show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions
Rebuild the Aff case.
BIR (B-Interpreter Rebuttal) – 1 1/2 page.=1050 words
Respond to latest Affirmative arguments
Make your final case to the Judge that the Neg position and claims and attacks on Aff points.
Summarize the debate and conclude effectively
2AIR (second A-Interpreter Rebuttal) – 3/4 of a page=525 words
Respond to final Negative arguments
Summarize the debate
Conclude effectively.
Judge: Makes a ballot, based what claims are left valid from both sides and a Judge might give debate points for debating skill and grammar.
In conclusion:
I hope that this can open up formal Debates between two individuals or teams of individuals which can be organized and instead of there being a winner or a loser, we become humble students of the word.
the benefits of this styles of debate is
1) gives opportunity for individuals to able to have a serious debate and opportunity to learn more.
2) any off topic comments or insults are disregarded by the Judge.
3) no more circle of arguments.
4) organization.
5) no winners or losers,
6) observers can see the points left valid after the debate.
7) helps get to the heart of the resolve.
8) helps the observer and the debater study more
9) We can see whats been refuted and whats not been refuted.
10) No more running away from arguing certain points.
For these reasons and more i hope that we can enact this type of debates.
I hope that Judges who are separate and chosen from the moderators and also chosen to participate in agreement from the debaters. or maybe we can raise polls and vote for judges.
I hope this idea which for me is very simple to enact because it does not have to change the forum in any way. its just organizational cases and a judge who has the authority to state whats been refuted and whats been held valid, and whats been dropped.
I hope all can see that this would be a great idea to help everyone simply understand each other in a formal organized debate.
Much love,
I offer my services as a judge.