Okay, so we've talked about having team-based debates before and I'm taking some initiative to start it. So here's the deal. This is "The Great Debate," a series of debate topics run and monitored by me (and the mods of MD, Kaz and Hoosier, obviously). They will be run like this:

1. Sign-ups
First, the topic will be presented (The first topic will be explained below). It will be laid out clear and simple. No credentials are required, however, veteran users are more likely to be picked than newbies.

2. Team Decisions
Once I have the list of people who are interested, I will decide who will debate and how the teams will be set up. They will most likely be 2 vs. 2, but can be 1 vs. 1 and 3 vs. 3. It may get bigger in the future, depending on the topic and the interest.

3. Debate Begins
I will give the formal introduction to the topic and it will begin after my post stating so. Each team will be watched for the sources they use, their ability to be consistent and to the point. The topic will be closed once I believe each team has proven their points and their efficiency in debating the topic. In the unlikely event that one team convinces the other team that they are right, the convincing team will be declared the winner.

The winner(s) of the debate will recieve an award in the amount of points depending on how well they performed in the debate.

This is a rough draft of my idea, these rules probably will change so keep an eye open.

The first topic is as follows:

Would you take a life? Simply put, do you feel, that in certain circumstances, that you would take another person's life? Is it right that you should take another's life, being a judge of who should live or die? The example scenario is as follows:

The "Batman" Scenario

You were walking down the street one night with your girlfriend and a man confronts the two of you at gunpoint, telling you to empty your pockets and give him all your cash and valuables. You comply, but he reaches for a necklace your girlfriend is wearing and she resists. He shoots and kills her and runs off into the night, leaving you alone, minus one person you cared dearly for. Would you take his life?

Basically, it's an 'eye for an eye' idea. However, this is on the subject of taking someone's life. You are not restricted to this scenario, but it is here to start the discussion. Is taking someone's life ever justified? Sign up by reposting and saying so.

If the mods of MD are eligible to participate you can put me at the top of the list of those that say yes, they would take a life.

Great idea to set up a few debate teams by the way.

Hoosier.

Of course mods are elligible. I'm not going to participate however, I may later though.

This would make a lot of controversy. It's the classic scenario that pits utilitarianism vs. deontology. Is this debate still going to go on, or did I miss something big?

"Would you..." questions don't make for good debate. A more sound resolution would sound something more like "Resolved: Given certain circumstances (Insert X, Y, Z whatever), is homicide morally justifiable?"

This would help tremendously to narrow the scope of the discussion to straighten out stragglers. Also I'm not sure how great this is for a debate topic, pretty one sided. Most everyone can justify it in extreme cases.

He's right, there isn't really any ground for both sides of the position, it would end up just being one sided. You have to frame a topic thats open to multiple interpretations, where you're most likely to have a big split of people on one side or the other, and also have to keep the topic narrow enought that it will be focused, but wide enough that it gives people room to wiggle . I think topics should go something like: Should volunteering be mandatory?. Its framed to be about the right size, allowing for lots of discussion and for a progression of the discussion from one point to another rather than having the same one pounded in every time. Also, the more simple question type of topic allows for conterversial issue which people have basically already decided on.

Now, I'm wondering how you "win". I mean it's all open to how he/she feels and views the subject, and everyone is going to have a diffrent opinion of who's right or wrong, so you're basically objectifying the opinions of a multitude of people to who goes along with your own personal opinion the best, which could cause some problems, objectivity is bad, etc. The only way for this to work is that you (the judge or whatever) have to set aside all personal opinions and go on only what's said.

However, I'd be interested in joining, but I may just be a newbie and not get picked.

EDIT: I just saw this at the end of your first post, and think it would be a good topic/ way to start, but suggest changing it to something like at what point is taking another life justified?

Also how is judging set? Is there a paridigm that the judge will be following? I'll assume it's nothing like a real debate (we'll assume a college judge) so that's a bad thing. Objectivity takes the point out of the argument.

Courtesy of John Cook, who wrote this theory block...

[1]Our community is in trouble. For decades, debate has blundered about in a morass of its own making, and it is now becoming apparent to many that the community should not persist. Young people engage in dozens or hundreds of debates to no particular end, and graduate from both school and debate with a false sense of accomplishment—they have medals, trophies, and an education, but that education inspires dangerous complacency—political complacency, social complacency, and complacency about the way we should think and act as individuals.

[2]We assert that this complacency and collapse of meaning stems from three sources: debate’s assumption that competitors are engaging in a rational dialogue for an objective and impartial judge; debate’s extreme emphasis on making arguments within stifling constraints on style and form; and debate’s inability to acknowledge its own subjectivity and desire. We, as a community, are afraid of what we want, and cannot go any further until we find out how we got here and think about what is stopping us from going further.

[3]The first problem--that of objectivity--stems from assumptions about competition itself. Although debate has few codified rules, there are many unstated and untested ideas that are absolutely foundational to the way we compete. First, we assume that two sides are adequate to present the full scope of relevant issues—that there are, basically, two sides to any given question. We also assume that the limited time for a debate is sufficient to present at least a cursory outline of the important material to be considered. These ideas are, to say the very least, extremely troublesome, and the advent of ridiculous disadvantage impacts, nitpicky topicality violations, and other perverse forms of debate are the byproducts of putting students on the wrong side of an argument, or placing them in a competitive situation where there is very little ground for “safe” or politically acceptable discussion. To be civil, to be rational, to be formally correct, to play to win, to find the truth, to do the things that a debater must do requires that one be absurd.

[4]And here, from the question of truth, we find the biggest untested assumption of debate: the supposition that judges are both impartial and interested. The model for the debate judge is the legal judge, who is confronted with a weighty decision that has a “real” impact, and who is aided by professional training, a caste of support staff, and an unlimited amount of time to reach the right decision. The debate judge, who must root out truth in the same fashion, is hardly in similar circumstances. A judge makes a decision alone, without the aid of training, professionalization, clerks, or doctrine, and decides based on extremely limited facts presented in an ideologically skewed manner.

[5]The very word “judge” is deceptive—who are our judges? They are not a professionalized caste. They are, rather, people with multiplexic ties to the debate community or no ties at all. The judge may also wear the hat of a coach, debater, tournament official, teacher, bus driver, family member, pastor, or citizen who was roped into judging at the last minute. Whoever the judge is, the judge is not as passionately interested in the debate as the debaters. The judge could probably use some coffee, perhaps didn’t want to get up early in the morning, may not have the same level of specific topical expertise, and does not experience substantial consequences from the outcome of the round. Indeed, each round features a profound rift in perceived intensity between debaters and judges. The debaters are competing for accolades, glory, romantic liaisons, the chance for more competition, etc, but the judge will leave the round the same no matter how they decide. We should not say that judges are impartial and objective, but that they are often profoundly indifferent to the highly self-involved arguments that we debaters present.

[6]We debaters assume our judges are machines, or at the least men and women of iron constitutions, able to find the truest truth and pick the appropriate outcome regardless of the personal values and experiences they bring to the round. We habitually assume this, at least in part, because it is easier to believe that than to find out who our critics truly are, and to cater to them specifically. It is a simple matter to hurl a huge mountain of evidence and jargon at a depersonalized adjudicator, but it is entirely different to make debate a communicative and interactive activity, where we know one another. Similarly, the depersonalization of the judge makes it easier to project our own failings onto those appointed to evaluate our efforts: if we lose a round, it is not because we failed to communicate our position, but because the judge was unfair, illegitimate, or lacked the vision to see what was really being argued. The debate judge is presumed to be impartial, a cool arbiter of contested facts, complex ideas, and sticky circumstances, a task utterly unnatural to any human and a burden to which no person can be expected to live up.

[7]How sad and unfair it is that we treat our judges this way for the sake of our own agendas, and that many judges play along. Not only is it impossible for a judge, or anybody, to divorce them self of their biases, but the bias is what makes a particular judge, any judge, worth having. The tyranny of being objective prevents judges from offering their own unique perspectives and experiences, and bars debaters from truly exercising well-honed skills of persuasion or meaningful dissent. The false mask of objectivity keeps us from being who we are. And, at the same time, our subjectivity will always seep through. The peculiar values and experiences of the judge will inevitably find their way into the way the round is decided, but when those particular values are lent the character of absolute, unquestionable, and eternally echoing truth through the ballot, it not only tarnishes the legitimacy of the activity but also the credibility of judgment itself.

[8]The perverse response of debate in the face of this crisis of objectivity, is not to simply own up to our shortcomings, or to incorporate them positively into the activity, but rather to create another level of artifice to cover it up. Excessively rigorous formal constraints are the second means by which debate loses its meaning. Every aspect of competition is standardized: affirmative cases, disadvantages, and any other argument have an accepted and well-specified form, as though sticking letters or numbers in front of assertions gives them meaning. Deviations from this convention of ordering and presentation, even by the most skilled debaters, amount to a substantial, often fatal, error. There is no room for creativity of presentation—arguments that are not thoroughly structured are “too hard” for judges to follow and for competitors to answer, ignoring the fact that challenge and innovation are the lifeblood of our culture.

[9]Here, we see that these standards of structure, of pace, of style, every facet of a normal debate, is designed to make things easy for the judge to digest, and to obscure any underlying failings in the arguments themselves. The unstated assumption here is that judges really aren’t competent to make tough decisions, that they can’t figure things out on their own, and that atomizing everything to the minutest possible level is somehow the same as making it both easier and better. Debate has embraced the sound bite culture, and judges thoroughly habituated to digesting only sound bites in their everyday life are often happy to stop at a sound bite and decide there.

[10]The justification for this form is that it mimics the way that policy discussions happen in the “real world,” ignoring that debate exists to contest and redress the inadequacies of the real world. Talking, thinking, and doing in the modes of the status quo has the effect of binding us all to the status quo, and debating as we do forces us to drag the mediocrity and contention of the present around as a millstone from our necks. If the real world doesn’t work, if the status quo doesn’t work, then we should not cling to it.

[11]Expanded form for debate offers so much potential. A 64-minute, multi-sided, well-informed discussion can raise consciousness, develop consensus, form opinion, and erect theory in ways that few other media or fora can.

[12]Debaters spend a great deal of time talking about preserving the education of debate, making debate more educational, using debate as a launch pad for activism and movements, or view debate as a movement in and of itself. However, all of this extremely self-serving talk of education, activism, and movements has the act of stifling all three. Artist Jenny Holzer built a large neon sign that read, “Protect me from what I want.” Debaters might as well wear such a sign on their foreheads, for it is the talk and behavior of the debate community as it is now that prevents it from becoming what it so desperately wants to be—a bona fide movement, a bona fide threat, a bona fide anything.

[13]Debate as it exists today is, instead, an unmovement. It is an immense group of like-minded individuals who get together and, rather than finding a point for solidarity and collective action, determinedly grind each other’s ideas into the ground every hour and then go home. Debaters grind each other down for the sake of the ballot, an item that is laughably ephemeral, immediately forgettable, and vested with such gigantic meaning only because of the communal hallucination that pieces of carbon paper produced in triplicate are important.

[14]The ballot is the crime that we all know but refuse to acknowledge. It is a crime against truth, against self-respect, and against unity. Affirmative or negative cannot possibly reflect the nuances of rhetoric, of competition, or of fact that exists beyond the immediate contest. Moreover, it blurs the line between means and ends—it tells us that signing a paper is the same as making an affirmative act, and that resistance and negation are valorous ends unto themselves. Debasing ourselves, our beliefs, and our own experiences for the sake of an extremely forgettable outcome is a crime against our sense of self, of personal integrity. We mean integrity not only as a sense of honor, but integrity as the very solidity of our individual selves—if nothing about us is permanent, and if everything we believe and know can be instantly sacrificed to the temporary imperatives and dictates of circumstance, than our identity means nothing at all. This extremely mercenary approach to advocacy also damages any sense of unity within the debate community. No idea can be commonly agreed upon, for the moment it is advanced in a round it must be negated for the sake of arbitrary victory. Further, the heated and often uncivil nature of policy debate as we know it today is not conducive to building a harmonious, purposeful community.

[15]If debate is to move forward, and to mean truly what it says about education, community, and activism, then there must be a radical overhaul of the ballot and our judicially based modes of contesting and deciding rounds. We envision two possible alternatives:

[16]One, where the judge is merely objective, like the artist, who sees fragments of truth in the world, but sees that truth solely to see it and relate it to others. In the paradigm of mere objectivity, the ballot is not a tool, or a momentous decision, but a blank canvas for expressing the essence of a microcosmic world of competition. If we are to transform debate in this way, we must invest in judges the same faith that we extent to our artists—we must grant them leave to reveal to us the truth about ourselves, and we must be prepared to accept it without fuss or strife. This means, in essence, transforming debate into an immense, unceasing act of art, a transformation that takes no small measure of courage.

[17]The other alternative is for debate, as a community, to embrace its subjectivities. We can acknowledge that we very much want to get certain things out of debate—often very different things—and we can discuss those disparate interests freely. This vision of debate is more like that of a constitutional convention or of a political meeting, where each participant advances their real view unabashedly, and by gathering input we construct a pluralistic, subjective, but inherently purpose-driven community. Let’s understand each other and truly acknowledge what we’re all looking for—to do less is to stay trapped in the current cycle of false accomplishment and disingenuous advocacy.

[18]We must unfortunately conclude by telling you that you don’t have anything to offer us. We don’t want anything as vulgar as your ballot, and we will not ask for it. To us, this round, indeed, this entire tournament, is an opportunity to start the discussion about what debate can be and should be. At the end of the year, at the State tournament, when so many well-qualified competitors are invested so heavily in winning rounds and glories rather than gaining understanding, it is particularly imperative to stop dead in our tracks and think long and hard about what we are doing.


sorry, had to do it. Where it talks about medals and ballots, just insert your points and decesion

First off all nice idea of the Great Debate contest pretty interesting. Anyway to answer the question 'Would you take a life?' based on the scenario. Here is brief answer:

It is actually very hard to decide what to do in those kind of situation and the choices you made then may affect you in the future. The two choices are either follow 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth' method which basically mean killing him or catch him and let him face the justice and have the punishment he deserved

Lets got to the first choice, killing Killing a live being isnt as easy as you think it is I believe once you killed a person there is always a chance of which you may follow/fall into the path of the criminal itself. But in this situation it may seems to be justified, the criminal take your beloved ones life and than you take him, a life for a life but IMO this isnt the best solutio, I mean when you killed him dont that technically label you as a murderer? (even tho it is for a good reason)

Which lead us to the second option which is catching him and submit him to the law enforcer. I think it is probably the best choice to choose, you wouldnt need to risk a lot and the criminal will probably receive the punishment he deserved (which really should be death).

As for the debate team, well Im looking forward to see people joining I mean I want to see people really into the subject and being passionate about it and I myself could perhaps learn a thing or two. As for me I dont think I can make it Im just a 15 years old lol and beside I dont think my grammar is that good xD also it is hard really to tell which side won I mean, in debate you can win the debate by making the person speechless (he/she cant asnwer you back as you trashed him with every single details, etc), the person believe/accept your side thus that mean he lost in the debate, etc...

Whoa, appreciate the enthusiasm, but this isn't a debate yet, this is just sign-ups. Don't jump the gun ;)

I know we have a few members from CrossX here and that they are very skilled in professional style debates. However, this isn't going to be very professional. It's just going to be a loose and open debate that I'm running. I really don't want some professional style debate. I think it may be intimidating to the other members that are used to casually debating here.

I love the fact that we have some 'master debators' here (sorry, couldn't hold that joke in much longer, I apologize) who can set a good standard for debates and discussions, but I didn't plan on a highly organized discussion. That said, I hope some of you will stay for this contest, even though it may be a bit more casual and loose than you're used to.