- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi T8 and 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.Quote
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 questioning1NC (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 courteousRebuttal 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 effectively2AR (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 questioning1BIC (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 courteousRebuttal 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 effectively2AIR (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 deba
te 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 t8 and allcan 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.
*Editing* change the resolve part in the BIF format. since there is no resolve in this format. made corrections in grammer and organization in BIF.
Added: a Word Count according to a rounded number of 700 at prox 630-670.
How about make it optional. If someone wants a debate and a judge, then that is stipulated in the first post and if the one being challenged and the judge decide to partake, then the debate can go from there.
If the first debate goes well, then I can add some text including this as an option at the top of the page.
Quote (t8 @ June 12 2010,09:23) How about make it optional. If someone wants a debate and a judge, then that is stipulated in the first post and if the one being challenged and the judge decide to partake, then the debate can go from there. If the first debate goes well, then I can add some text including this as an option at the top of the page.
Oh ya thats what i meant, totallly optional.If two individuals want to debate one on one in this style than they can choose judge.
I would perfer the moderators to choose the apprioate judge for debaters to choose from. or they can be voted in by the members of heaven.net.
Again thats the whole point of this,
either a freestyle debate (that is already offered, like the whole mess between KJ and Mike that hapened.)or a formal debate.
The whole point of having a judge, is not for any winner or loseing condition. its for validation only. What points were upheld and what were droped basically.
what do you think?
I think it is a good idea SF! We are here to learn, not to win or overpower another. A judge just might help nail things down and keep things more respectable.
Hi SF,
In certain cases I may elect to offer my services as the defense attorney.
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (princess of the king @ June 12 2010,14:56) Will this debate forum be open to all?
I believe so,If T8 allows us.
makes a speacail section for it probably. or within the same debate section thats already open.Hi SF,
Are you familiar with the mock trial on the resurrection of Jesus Christ put forth by U.S. Senate lawyers?
Atheist put forth the evidence that there was no resurrection
and believing lawyers put forth evidence that there was.
This mock trial was complete with a Bench Judge.
I have been looking for the transcripts,
but I have yet to find them.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgYes, please do that, because I think it will only bring about more confusion. I like it just the way it is….. Irene
Quote (Arnold @ June 13 2010,06:57) Yes, please do that, because I think it will only bring about more confusion. I like it just the way it is….. Irene
How could that bring out more confusion?when the point of it all is not to bring out confusion. but to see whats been droped or whats been held valid. not to repeat the same point again and again. and stop ppl from running away from arguements that they know that have been dropped.
And its an optional debate between two people not mandatory of course.
so you perfer the status qou, where people debate in a freestyle, insulting eachother, in a forever cycle of questions and insults and going off topic? (for example Kj vs Mike)
having a formal debate would end all of that and allow people to be civilized and have a great time learning in a formal style of debate. We have to many intellgent people here in this forum that need something concrete, and somethign that can bring out the best of them not the worse.
you still disagree?Hi Dennison,
I would have loved to have you moderate my debate with Jack. It was crazier being on the inside of it than it looks from the outside.
t8 has given his ok to try it. I just challenged katjo to a trinity debate. If he accepts the challenge and agrees to your idea, I'm very willing to let you keep things in focus just to see how it will work.
What's the worst that can happen? We decide we don't like it and tell you to stop?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,12:55) Hi Dennison, I would have loved to have you moderate my debate with Jack. It was crazier being on the inside of it than it looks from the outside.
t8 has given his ok to try it. I just challenged katjo to a trinity debate. If he accepts the challenge and agrees to your idea, I'm very willing to let you keep things in focus just to see how it will work.
What's the worst that can happen? We decide we don't like it and tell you to stop?
peace and love,
mike
Ok Great!!! lets give this a try!!i didnt realize that t8 gave his ok.
Should i give more details about it?
any more questions or doubts about the debates?note: the first constructive for both sides give details about how to organize ones case.
Let me know when you would like to start.
much love,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,12:55) Hi Dennison, I would have loved to have you moderate my debate with Jack. It was crazier being on the inside of it than it looks from the outside.
t8 has given his ok to try it. I just challenged katjo to a trinity debate. If he accepts the challenge and agrees to your idea, I'm very willing to let you keep things in focus just to see how it will work.
What's the worst that can happen? We decide we don't like it and tell you to stop?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,I see you are a moderator;
You will make a Good moderator!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
PS. Katjo is female. Also what does the 64 stand for?Quote (Ed J @ June 13 2010,21:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,12:55) Hi Dennison, I would have loved to have you moderate my debate with Jack. It was crazier being on the inside of it than it looks from the outside.
t8 has given his ok to try it. I just challenged katjo to a trinity debate. If he accepts the challenge and agrees to your idea, I'm very willing to let you keep things in focus just to see how it will work.
What's the worst that can happen? We decide we don't like it and tell you to stop?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,I see you are a moderator;
You will make a Good moderator!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
PS. Katjo is female. Also what does the 64 stand for?
Hi Ed,Thanks brother. I didn't know it showed up anywhere.
Thanks for the heads up on katjo. The avatar looks like a dude to me…..so I assumed.
64 is the year I was born.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 13 2010,17:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,12:55) Hi Dennison, I would have loved to have you moderate my debate with Jack. It was crazier being on the inside of it than it looks from the outside.
t8 has given his ok to try it. I just challenged katjo to a trinity debate. If he accepts the challenge and agrees to your idea, I'm very willing to let you keep things in focus just to see how it will work.
What's the worst that can happen? We decide we don't like it and tell you to stop?
peace and love,
mike
Ok Great!!! lets give this a try!!i didnt realize that t8 gave his ok.
Should i give more details about it?
any more questions or doubts about the debates?note: the first constructive for both sides give details about how to organize ones case.
Let me know when you would like to start.
much love,
Hi Dennison,I'm ready, katjo hasn't responde to my challenge yet.
And I'm not sure what this entails: note: the first constructive for both sides give details about how to organize ones case.
mike
Quote Hi Dennison, I'm ready, katjo hasn't responde to my challenge yet.
And I'm not sure what this entails: note: the first constructive for both sides give details about how to organize ones case.
mike
Hi Mike,The note i was refferring to was how to organize or present ones case.
The First constructive for both Aff and Neg are very important because the whole debate is centered around the cases that are presented. When the rebuttle starts no new points can be made.
note: since verses cannot be intepreted from what is not said (speculations have no validation in this debate) i added an option to second the verse your using with another to give your idea more validation.Case formats.
Aff Case
1AC (first Affirmative Constructive) – 1 1/2 page
Intro: introducing your position
Resolve: The resolve/idea that one is affirming
Define Terms: Define terms within the resolve.
1-4Contentions: Contentions are made up of Claims, warrents and impacts. usually its only 4C but you can have as many as you want according to page limit.
–Claim- what you’re proving
–Warrent- your evidence
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent. (no speculation, stating whats not said.)
>>V: The verse being used.
>>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.NEG CASE
1NC (first Negative Constructive) – 2 pages
Note: Neg can adopt Aff points.
Intro: introducing your position
Resolve: The resolve/idea that one is Negating
Define Terms: Define terms within the resolve.
1-4Contentions: Contentions are made up of Claims, warrents and impacts. usually its only 4C but you can have as many as you want according to page limit.
–Claim- what you’re proving
–Warrent- your evidence
> Biblical scriptures: needs to be interpreted to understand intent. (no speculation, stating whats not said.)
>>V:the vesre being used.
>>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. (its a good idea to attack the Affs whole case, at least a mention of it to extend later.)
Conclusion: summary, and conclusion, connecting back to your points and side of the resolve.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
