----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam C. Lipscomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: Re: Brin-L Steel Cage Deathmatch
> Jeroen wrote: > > Challenge accepted! (Easy really, all I have to do is copy-and-paste > John's > > posts.) > > > > <Entering Steel Cage> > > Whoa, tiger! Let's establish some ground rules: > > (1) We need 3 volunteers to judge > (2) The debate will be judged on logically constructed posts - no > cut&paste of the other guy's posts > > Any other suggestions? > I think that the basis should be on how reasonable a case each party makes. Maybe we could base it on the basic debate format. One side or the other would have the positive for a position. Such as Resolved, the Palestinians/Israelies are the party that reasonable moral people would tend to support more. There may be a better statement of the topic, but that's off the top of my head. The affirmative would make a case, the negative would rebut and produce a counter case, if so desired. I'd apply the usual debate rules: the ability of affirmative to make points that the negative couldn't sucessfully rebut, the ability of the negative's counter claim to stand unrebutted, the logic of the presentation, etc. The use of evidence to back up one's claim is also important. The opinion of the judges concerning the topic need not affect the judging. If anything, when I judge a debate, I have to guard against judging the debators who take the side I favor by stricter standards because I see all the points they miss. Dan M. Da
