World Online Debating Championships

[Spawnie]

Debatewise is proud to announce the second World Online Debating Championships (WODC). This is a debating competition like no other; you can debate from the comfort of your home, you can participate anywhere with internet access, you have a full 24 hours to perfect your arguments and can collaborate with teammates, no matter where they are in the world.
You can read last year's debates here.

How does it work?
First register your team by sending us an email, below.
At the given time (yet to be finalised, but in early July) we'll pair up teams, assign a motion and decide who will be the proposition and who'll be the opposition - all at random of course
A typical debate starts on Monday and runs as follows

1. Monday 12 noon GMT
   Motion revealed to Proposition – they make their case
2. Tuesday 12 noon GMT
   Motion and proposition’s arguments revealed to Opposition. Opposition responds and makes its case
3. Wednesday 12 noon GMT
   Proposition responds to opposition – adds new arguments
4. Thursday 12 noon GMT
   Opposition responds to proposition – makes new arguments
5. Friday 12 noon GMT
   Both sides summarise
6. Saturday 12 noon GMT
   Judging begins. Two judges will be experienced real-world debate judges, and the third 'judge' will be a score devised from the open voting facility on the site.
7. Winners progress to the next round

Entry costs US$20 per person and is capped at $100 per team. If this causes you a problem please email us below and we'll see what we can do. We will only have one team from each country so may hold preliminary rounds to select the representative before the main contest starts. You'll be notified if that is the case.
Otherwise, get entering and good luck. We are restricting this competition to 32 teams only so don't delay, enter now!

http://debatewise.org/wodc

No?

OK, so I posted this for two reasons. The first is that we could definately progress with the number of intelligent pedants we have here.

The second is that I get the impression that a few of you think this site is stagnating slightly. Winning or progressing in something like this could bring lots of hits.

Any takers? Anyone interested, even though they dont think they would participate? Basically just post something.

[GGT]

Loki and Fuzzy like that kind of thing, don't they? And I'm betting they have some summer time on their hands.....

Joining that debate competition would be good to pimp Loki's blog, at least.

[littlelolligagged]

Something.



(you asked for it)

[Nessus]

Let's combine Loki, Fuzzy and wiggin into a huge debate-a-bot, like in those Japaneses cartoon shows!

[GGT]

I'd add Steely and Rand, too. We lost some good "debaters" along the way. Like that Noah Crane guy, and Miang.

Cain is good at writing and debating, if he can contain his temper and general verbal violence.

[Crowheart]

Sounds cool..
Can't wait to see 4chan's team.

So am I reading it right in that there is no restriction to number of people on a team?
Didn't see it mentioned and the cap of $100 insinuates that's the case.

[Spawnie]

20 x 5 = 100 so 5 people per team

[Crowheart]

Hmm..don't see it, will take your word for it.

I do see it says only one team from each country will be taken, which could affect your team make-up as people here are from all over the world.

Seems odd that the organizers would put such a restriction...don't they know the internet transcends borders?

[Spawnie]

"Entry costs US$20 per person and is capped at $100 per team."

Not sure about the country thing. Maybe you declare a "country" which you are from and go from there. Might send an e-mail for clarification tomorrow.

As it stands i actually agree that alley cat loki, fussy fag fuzzy, and superjew wiggin would be excellent on this team, could we get them interested. Thats not to put anyone else down, there are plenty of good debators on here. Loki i would hope would be interested in order to bring a few people to the site.

As an aside, are there other things like this which we can participate in or whatever in order to raise our prestige and bring (quality) people in?

[Crowheart]

Glancing at last years entries, it's definitely a country thing.
Lithuania defeated England in the final.

Well, good luck guys if you do take part.

EDIT: Several of the teams had more than five people it looks like too, so you can have more, just don't have to pay more after $100.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sounds cool..
Can't wait to see 4chan's team.

So am I reading it right in that there is no restriction to number of people on a team?
Didn't see it mentioned and the cap of $100 insinuates that's the case.

4chan is actually fairly well suited to some very dominant strategies in contemporary competitive debate.

I may like to discuss and rebut but an extemp event is a bit different.

[agamemnus]

I would be interested, but I'm not paying anything.

[Dreadnaught]

Depending on payment options, I'd pledge $20 to have someone/some people here enter.

[wiggin]

To be honest, it sounds like quite a bit of work (and they seemed kinda vague about how country teams are selected). Not to mention that half of the topics I see discussed on there I am either largely ignorant about (e.g. the heavy Brit-centered topics) or not particularly excited about debating, since the arguments for a strong position either way are pretty awful (e.g. one about same sex marriage). I mean, look at the proposition for the final match last year:

“Calling rose by another name does not change its beauty neither smell”… There are quite a few differences between the events in Germany on February 27, 1933, and in the US on September 11, 2001. Where do these fundamental differences arise from? From where else than from the importance of how we call things. In the latter case, the name of the building which burned was not Reichstag, but World Trade Center. The threat signaled by that was not called of Jewish but of Muslim origin. The place for keeping “dangerous” people was not called a concentration camp but the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The organization, which essentially was allowed everything for the purpose of national security, was not called SS, but FBI this time. The person widely associated with the events was not called the TIME Magazine's Man of the Year for 1938 – Adolf Hitler, but instead TIME Magazine's Person of the Year for 2000 – George W. Bush. Last but definitely not least, the “temporary” measures taken after were not called Law for Terminating the Suffering of People and Nation but THE PATRIOT Act.

Not only is that mildly ridiculous, it also casts the arguments into such stark relief as to make the debate more a staking out of positions and defending them at all costs with rhetoric than a true exchange of views. This is not unique to this form of debate; anyone who has watched debate teams (either at the high school or collegiate level) will see the same kind of behavior - argument devoid of content. That being said, I appreciated the point-by-point format and felt the moderators/judges did a decent job of evaluating the results.

That being said, if there's significant interest in forming a team, I could probably be persuaded to join.

[Dreadnaught]

Comparing the US post-September 11 to Nazi Germany?

Any serious debating challenge wouldn't invoke an instant Godwin. Pledge rescinded.

[GGT]

If you guys start a serious debating team, it might be a good idea to automatically disqualify any Jews. Even smart folks like Dread just can't resist calling anything that talks about WWII or Germany as anything but a Godwin.

For that matter, exclude any vocal Muslim or pro-Palestinian. Any nationalist or person of faith. Their perspective is just whacked, right?

Probably not a good idea to pick a Christian, either. Or a woman, or a feminist. Let alone an American. Might lead to, ya know, debates.

[LittleFuzzy]

If you guys start a serious debating team, it might be a good idea to automatically disqualify any Jews. Even smart folks like Dread just can't resist calling anything that talks about WWII or Germany as anything but a Godwin.

Do some research on competitive debate. Exactly that sort of resort to racism, regardless of topic, is a very powerful strategy. The actual topic doesn't matter. Choose a topic that's easy for you to control debate on, tie the actual topic to what you want to stake a position on with some soft positional claims which are hard to counter, and then go to town. It is hard to keep a team doing that from controlling the discussion, and judges have a hard time pointing against demands to address obvious issues of social justice.

[GGT]

Then why bother?

edit to Fuzzy---and by the way, isn't form, strategy and tactic the very thing you criticize about my posts? Yes. It's never about the content, but the delivery that you object to. You object to discussion that flows and changes, with tangents, dynamics that aren't geared toward winning something.

That may work fine for "debate competitions" but not in Debate and Discussion. DISCUSSION.

[Loki]

To be honest, it sounds like quite a bit of work (and they seemed kinda vague about how country teams are selected). Not to mention that half of the topics I see discussed on there I am either largely ignorant about (e.g. the heavy Brit-centered topics) or not particularly excited about debating, since the arguments for a strong position either way are pretty awful (e.g. one about same sex marriage). I mean, look at the proposition for the final match last year:

I looked over a few other debates from the last competition. Invoking Nazis seem to be the norm, as is throwing in numerous irrelevant citations.

[LittleFuzzy]

Then why bother?

Pretty much my position.

edit to Fuzzy---and by the way, isn't form, strategy and tactic the very thing you criticize about my posts? Yes. It's never about the content, but the delivery that you object to. You object to discussion that flows and changes, with tangents, dynamics that aren't geared toward winning something.

That may work fine for "debate competitions" but not in Debate and Discussion. DISCUSSION.

I object to plenty of your content, when I can understand it at all. But posting my disagreement is pointless, because I cannot have a coherent discussion with you. Discussion flows. You don't flow, you teleport all over the place, say contradictory things, assume connections between things which have nothing to do with each other, and constantly try to turn otherwise interesting discussion to some other topic which I don't find interesting at all. "Winning something" has nothing to do with it.

[']['ear]

Wow, that was really nice, Fuzz.

[Spawnie]

However, at least a few people have said they were interested here. And i do think it might bring a bit more fresh blood to the site. Ill e-mail the guy when i get back home on monday (or someone can do it for me) asking for clarification on numbers, countries, etc.

I think if we began, a couple of others here would probably join in.

Even if not, has anyone heard of anything else we might contribute to? We all know bitter is exploring his photography, but ive seen a couple of other people being seriously interested to. Are there photography competitions that could be entered as a group with a selection of our best collective work?