EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

You choose the resolution

0 points
0 points

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Etiquette is for sissies. Sorry though, I'm leaving it up to offset my negative ELO. You have the option of doing an unrated debate.
Posted 2014-08-09 03:00:54
Oh well, it was worth a try. I'm used to the etiquette on Debate.org.

Posted 2014-08-09 02:58:37
The community here is friendly. You wont be judged based on ELO, nor will you dazzle people for having a high one. There are a lot of options. Next time, make the debate rounds longer than three days. I prefer one month posting times.
Posted 2014-08-09 02:07:40
The debate is staying up. We can start anew if you wish though. Just take your hand off auto forfeit.
Posted 2014-08-09 02:06:25
Any chance you'd be willing to have this debate deleted and try again?
Posted 2014-08-09 02:01:21
Well, crap. I though I had more time than I did. Not a good way to start my debate career on this site.
Posted 2014-08-09 01:30:21
Please forfeit! Please forfeit! Please forfeit!
Posted 2014-08-07 23:36:10
My resolutions will be
- The Islamic State is more powerful than Hezbollah (Con)
- Ukraine will have strategic victory in Donbass (Pro)
- The SNC is the best faction to rule Syria (Pro)

We can reword the pro one's
Posted 2014-08-05 23:22:33
I can't give you my resolutions until you post
Posted 2014-08-05 23:01:18
Those were just topics. When are you planning on posting?
Posted 2014-08-05 23:00:08
Ba'al, these aren't resolutions and they aren't different topics. These are simply current events. There's no inherent stance I'm presented with to affirm or negate. When we discuss the Donbass War, what is it that we are debating about that war? The ethics? The viability? Which side is right?

Further as all of these are current events, they aren't unique topics.

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to debate, but I need you to present statements that can either be affirmed or negated 'ex: The Donbass War is justified // The Gaza Conflict is the fault of American Exceptionalism // The United Nations should assist Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabahk conflict // etc.'

Does that make sense? We need both needs sides that we are tasked with affirming or negating. These topics are phrased more like talking points than debate resolutions. Unless we know what position we're meant to defend, there's no way for use to establish burdens to understand when a side has one.

Further, try and diversify topics. Say, one current events topics, one pop culture topic, one religious topics etc. etc.

Anyway, I hope you respond soon. I'm excited about my first debate on this platform and I want to make sure I have plenty of time to prep my case.
Posted 2014-08-05 22:12:10
I'm probably doing one of the three big events going on right now....
- Donbass War
- Gaza Conflict
- Nagorno-Karabahk confliict
Posted 2014-08-05 20:10:34
How did you know?
Posted 2014-08-05 20:09:21
I'm picking, something Russian.
Posted 2014-08-05 20:08:37
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
= Introduction =
Whoever accepts should offer three different debate topics in the first round. I will chose one of those three, and we'll debate it starting in round two. Con may offer No resolutional analysis, framework, definitions or arguments in round one. Nothing may be posted aside from Con's three resolutions and a short Greeting. It will be my right to interpret the resolutions the way I want to, and Con should not violate my right to interpret these resolutions by offering additional analysis.

We're also going to to do things a little differently time. If con would rather have the challenge of having a surprise resolution he or she may write "You chose the resolution Dakota." instead of posting their chosen topics.

= Rules =
1. I reserve the right to change any resolution that is unfair, con-skewed, or truistic. Con may argue against the fairness of my resolution if they allow me to choose.
2. Unless the BoP can be shown to belong to a specific side, it is assumed to be shared. In that case If you think the debate is a tie, don't vote. Neither side automatically maintains presumption (get's the vote by default). It does not matter which belief, policy, or idea has presumption in the status quo.
3. Con gets to present the resolutions, but I will choose which one we debate, and which side I get to argue. This may mean I insert a 'not' into the resolution, reword it a bit, or outright debate as Con. If I choose to do this, I will make it clear that this is my intention from the beginning.
4. Evidence and research are greatly encouraged, but not absolutely necessary. This debate can be completely rhetorical, or common knowledge based. If evidence is provided, sources should be listed in-round for the convenience of the other debater, and evidence should not be cited out of context. Do not post sources in the comments, or otherwise outside of the debate itself.
5. This will be a public debate. If a voter fails to take one of your arguments into account because you make the argument overly complicated, that is a failure of communication on your own part. No complaining about votes unless they're very clearly a bomb. "I find X debater's argument of A more compelling that Y debater's argument of B" is not a vote bomb. Votes are subjective, and the fact that a fellow member took the time to vote on this debate should be respected and treated with gratitude.
6. Additionally, I ask that all voters keep in mind this is a debate for sport, not legitimate advocacy. Please vote on the arguments presented in the round, not on your own opinions or beliefs. The Pro and the Con do not necessarily believe the position they are arguing.
7. No new arguments in the last round.

= Underview =
I want to leave as much freedom for this debate as possible. I won't utilize my right to change the topics unless they're truly abusive. That doesn't doesn't mean I won't take the side I prefer, it means that I won't change the basic nature of the the resolution.

If you have a problem with any of the rules I'm open to change them before anyone accepts. Discuss possible rule changes in the comments so that they're open for everyone to see. These rules have tended to cover all the necessary bases in the past and so far as I can see they're fair.

Clarifications of the rules should also be sought in the comments prior to accepting.

Any style of argumentation is fine, but I hope that Con will be mindful that all voters may not be accustomed to specific formats of debate such as policy or LD. I myself tend to gravitate towards a more technical style of argument and understand the difficulty for veteran debaters to drop the jargon. Debate rhetoric is fine, just be mindful that not everyone is going to understand it.

I look forward to a fun round!