Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 4, 2008 19:13:42 GMT -5
For the sake of the debaters' sanity and lives, if you think we should have a time limit and/or a word limit per post please give your suggestions.
Time: I think 2 weeks Word: Maybe 5000 inclusive of quotes
Other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Mar 4, 2008 19:21:38 GMT -5
My post from the other thread (I will delete it there):
Hmmmm...as chief ref, I imagine that would be down to you and Admin, really...but since you asked for opinions, here's mine:
I don't really think word limits are necessary. These are to be debates over quite serious issues/allegations IMO and I think those debating should be allowed to use however many words it takes to make his (in this case) point. After all, the reader may choose to read or not to read....but it could cause problems if the debaters have to start limiting themselves word-wise. They could end up feeling they had to leave out something significant OR proper explanation of something from their point of view.
Just my thoughts. M.
Also, GIT originally suggested 2 weeks...I thought perhaps 1 week. Whichever way that goes, I have changed my opinion on the matter. With thoughts of peoples "real lives" interfering (pesky things!!! ) and having to search things out in scripture, etc....I do feel it would be best in the longer timeframe. Considering that a lot of us visit this board every day and have for quite some time now, 2 weeks really isn't that long.... M.
PS...in light of fs's post on the other thread (I tend to agree with her a lot!) perhaps 3 weeks? It's my opinion (only!) that we don't really need six weeks to two months..since the first posts will be made and then each poster only has ..what?...two more posts after that, each? It was Jason's own suggestion for 2 weeks, so I would think he would be ok with that timeframe or just a bit higher. My remarks on word limit above. M.
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on Mar 4, 2008 19:43:33 GMT -5
You might take into consideration than some peoples brains can only absorb so much at a time.
I know for me if I come upong posts that are 500 words( Guessing) or more I dont even bother to read it. Its simply too much to wade through.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2008 19:54:04 GMT -5
since the first posts will be made and then each poster only has ..what?...two more posts after that, each? I tend to agree with M's comments, we need to be a bit flexible as we find out in practice how this will work. Already longer time seems necessary, say 2 weeks from the start of the debate (first posting of the affirmative position). Because it is meant to be a serious debating of significant issues (this being the first of many, we hope). Personally I would like to not limit the number of responses, but rather that we allow as many as the debaters are able to provide within the allotted time. (This may have the added benefit of encouraging shorter responses - fewer words for those of us with short attention spans admin
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 4, 2008 20:04:18 GMT -5
Pro will have an unfair advantage if the two weeks starts from the time they give opening post. Theoretically, they could take as long as they like to craft their first post and then Bam! the rest of the debate gets two weeks. I agree with the need for flexibility and I agree that this is a test run of sorts. The danger of unlimited responses is it can go easily go off on irrelevant tangents. The danger of no word limits is what I suspect is happening now - a book is being written for the opening post.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Mar 4, 2008 20:12:32 GMT -5
You're right about the unfair advantage....perhaps both parties could post when they are ready with their first posts to make it fair? I hadn't thought of that this time as Zorro has already posted he is ready on another thread....M.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2008 20:13:10 GMT -5
Pro will have an unfair advantage if the two weeks starts from the time they give opening post. Theoretically, they could take as long as they like to craft their first post and then Bam! the rest of the debate gets two weeks. I agree with the need for flexibility and I agree that this is a test run of sorts. The danger of unlimited responses is it can go easily go off on irrelevant tangents. The danger of no word limits is what I suspect is happening now - a book is being written for the opening post. Good points, thanks. Hey what's the opposite of "pro" in this instance? Whatever it is, we can start the clock after "pro" and "anti?" have both posted. Zorro has already indicated that he is ready with his position. Is "anti" expected to respond to "pro's" first post or simply post a position without regard to what "pro" posts? (getting into the finer points here). Like freespirit said, ProBoards have a word limit and that will likely keep the book fairly thin. Maybe if not unlimited responses, an agreed larger number (6 each?). Wonder do GIT or Zorro have a view on this? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2008 20:16:33 GMT -5
And there's more unfairness if one debater takes forever to post a response and causes the other (who may be ready with lots of arguments) to run out of time. Maybe a clock like in a chess game, with each debater given half the allotted time?
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Mar 4, 2008 20:20:21 GMT -5
I think the first "anti" post is actually the third post though, right? Don't they *both* state their own opening arguements in their first posts? M.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2008 20:34:03 GMT -5
I think the first "anti" post is actually the third post though, right? Don't they *both* state their own opening arguements in their first posts? M. Yeah I meant start the clock after both debaters have presented their opening arguments. Maybe then we need a strict time regime, perhaps 24 or 48 hours to post a response or the other side gets to go again? (like a free hit).
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Mar 4, 2008 20:42:49 GMT -5
oops, sorry for the misunderstanding!
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Mar 4, 2008 21:05:10 GMT -5
Yeah I meant start the clock after both debaters have presented their opening arguments. Maybe then we need a strict time regime, perhaps 24 or 48 hours to post a response or the other side gets to go again? (like a free hit). I have to say I wonder about this. In an ideal world I think a 24 or 48 hour response time this would be great... but... um.... all of us have work and homes and family and our health and friends and crisis and real-life stuff to deal with. I know for me that there are a lot of days when finding an extra 15 minutes is not happening--and these responses are liable to literally take hours to prepare a really well thought out post. Most of us just don't have an extra 2 hours a night on a regular basis. I'd hate to miss a good post just because real-life got in the way of one of our champions and they couldn't make the time limit. I'm not sure about Zorro, but I know that Jason is stretched seriously thin right now. I don't want either of them to burn out before the first debate really kicks off. And I'd like to see the best effort from both of them, not something they have to throw together at the last minute because of some ticking clock. Maybe instead of a time limit we could decide on a post limit. But, even with that said, I'd sure hate for a interesting fireworks show to be shut down on a technicality. We've been waiting too long for this to rush it along IMO. My vote would be to leave (especially this first debate) really open and really flexible and to see how it goes. We can always monitor it as we go along. If it seems to be flying off into a tangent then the ref can step in and call a time or posting limit. That would give it both form and freedom. Am I up to 4 cents yet? peace, freespirit
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2008 21:10:55 GMT -5
oops, sorry for the misunderstanding! No it was me wasn't clear and you fixed it up! Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2008 21:22:26 GMT -5
I'd hate to miss a good post just because real-life got in the way of one of our champions and they couldn't make the time limit. I'm not sure about Zorro, but I know that Jason is stretched seriously thin right now. I don't want either of them to burn out before the first debate really kicks off. And I'd like to see the best effort from both of them, not something they have to throw together at the last minute because of some ticking clock. Maybe instead of a time limit we could decide on a post limit. But, even with that said, I'd sure hate for a interesting fireworks show to be shut down on a technicality. We've been waiting too long for this to rush it along IMO. My vote would be to leave (especially this first debate) really open and really flexible and to see how it goes. We can always monitor it as we go along. If it seems to be flying off into a tangent then the ref can step in and call a time or posting limit. That would give it both form and freedom. Am I up to 4 cents yet? peace, freespirit I think that adds to 6 cents now, doesn't it? This is like a good courtroom argument, I find myself agreeing with one point of view and then another well-reasoned argument changes me, like a pendulum going back and forth. You make good points freespirit and I agree. What is more important, that the tea goes cold, maybe we run out of coffee for the pot (like some of our patience) or that we do this thing proper and really thresh out the issues? Let's hear what our ref's got to say.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 4, 2008 21:30:31 GMT -5
no @#$% cuss words. can we debate whether or not you people even actually exist, and are not bots? i am an alternate delegate now. i could have been a delegate, but i figured i can't really afford to go to washington d.c. plus i don't have transportation. ron paul got the delegates in my precinct... nobody even showed up for mc cain or huckabee... there were several of us for ron paul. i was made seargent at arms of the caucus. it was fun !
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Mar 4, 2008 21:36:31 GMT -5
You make good points freespirit and I agree. What is more important, that the tea goes cold, maybe we run out of coffee for the pot (like some of our patience) or that we do this thing proper and really thresh out the issues? **smiles** Now don't you worry one bit about the coffee and tea. I've got that ALL under control here in the kitchen and so many wonderful volunteers. I even have a new apron. The important thing is that we take care of our champions so we have a spectacular fireworks show. Surely we want to hear their BEST arguments, their most well-thought out ideas and research points. Zap! Pow! I wanna see something COOL! To have that, they need to have enough time and enough sleep and enough prayer and enough emotional energy to really give it their all. Unfortunately most of us have to work for a living and do all that other lifestuff... and still only 24 hours in a day. And... well... I'm kinda thinking the ref can blow his whistle if it just gets to be too drawn out or goes off on a tangent. JMO. I'm thinking this is nearly a dime from me by now. ;D Scones, anyone? freespirit
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Mar 4, 2008 21:56:41 GMT -5
Good points, thanks. Hey what's the opposite of "pro" in this instance?
There are different ways of describing the positions:pro/com, affirmative/negative, etc. My understanding of this particular debate is that the affirmative position defends the resolution and the negative refutes it.
As far as the time/word limits go....most debates have at least some kind of restrictions. In any formal debate format from high school to Congress there's a time limit. I've checked out some on-line debate sites and they all seem to have a time limit between posts. The longest I've seen is 5 days for a response. I like the rule about indicating the final edit before allowing responses, so this edit window would need to be included in any time allotment. I can see no reason other than emergencies to go beyond that. If a debater can't commit to responses within that time-frame under normal circumstances, they should decline, IMO. I do think that if a limit is imposed (2-3 weeks, for example - 2 months is much too long ) the "con" position should have at least the normal alloted response time for their closing post. A word limit would be akin to the minute limits on verbal debates. Debates are still style a form of structured dialog, and responding to a "book" isn't conducive to dialog, IMO. Anyone know what ProBoards' limit is ?
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 4, 2008 21:59:52 GMT -5
what ever happened to "take no thought beforehand what ye shall say" ? i guess you have to have the Spirit for that.
oh well...
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Mar 4, 2008 22:04:54 GMT -5
**pours Zorro another cup of coffee, adds cream** fs
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 4, 2008 22:11:36 GMT -5
These are my two cents and aren't final - I think a time limit just isn't workable for this first debate. Maybe for future ones. It would be nice to have it wrapped up in a few weeks but others have pointed out these are important questions. Let's see how it goes and then for the next debate decide on a realistic time limit.
The word limit should be one post which is whatever Proboards has made it. That includes quotes.
I do think there has also to be a post limit or it could just go on and on. I think we should stick with my initial suggestion (in The Ref's Thread) for this debate and see how we go. The debaters can give feedback if they would like more responses available. There are no standard formal debating rules that are universally used. Groups set their own depending on what they want to achieve.
Con's opening address can include initial rebuttals if they like, bearing in mind that means less room for putting forward the positive case for their own view. In all the formal debates I've seen or read, the majority allow this. The participants should have a say in that, as it's their debate.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 4, 2008 22:31:46 GMT -5
should i take thought from this debate? because i really wanna add a cubit to my stature....really, really bad...
should i prepare a long answer beforehand?
Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. Mar 13:11 But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. Luk 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and [unto] magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
basically, if Gloryintruth hopes to win, he should not be preparing anything. he should be already prepared.
but then i am not of this world. the world does things the way it wants to.
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 4, 2008 22:40:46 GMT -5
Ranman has offered to defend the proposition "Christians should not participate in formal debates".
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 4, 2008 22:43:51 GMT -5
wait a minute... debating is cool, just not too cool debating Jesus. if you know Him, you do, and there is only one.
i may as well debate with my sister about what mom means when she says "I love you" .........same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Mar 4, 2008 23:52:29 GMT -5
I do think there has also to be a post limit or it could just go on and on. I think we should stick with my initial suggestion (in The Ref's Thread) for this debate and see how we go.
Sounds good to me.
Con's opening address can include initial rebuttals if they like
I wasn't planning on this, but I like the flexibilty.
I do think there should at the very least be some sort of "gentleman's agreement" regarding responses. Personally, I think 5 days should be a "target". If necessary a simple explanation and expected completion date can be presented if more time will be needed. GiT exemplified this when he apologized for being tardy and gave us an expected date. This is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 5, 2008 0:07:17 GMT -5
On the 2x2 doctrine board, I think I saw that proboards had increased a posting length from 25,000 to 60,000 characters. I could be wrong though. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 5, 2008 3:15:38 GMT -5
Lot's of good ideas -- here are my favorites:
*limited posts, as follows 1) Pro topic open 2) Con topic open 3) Pro first response 4) Con first response 5) Pro second response 6) Con second response 7) Pro close 8) Con close
*Gentlemen's agreement to make best effort to respond within 5 days, with polite requests for an extension duly honored *Limits on length of post -- let's hope a hard limit is not necessary, but if someone posts the equivalent of a 30 minute speech, ref could step in. As Zorro wrote, responding to a book could be unwieldy. I guess using the Proboards limit for a single post should work.
By the way, I just now tested the post size limit on a proboards site that I administer, and it is 25kb, which is 25,600 characters. That seems like a workable limit to me. I did read somewhere that the limit would increase to 60,000, but if so, apparently it has not happened yet -- at least not on the server my site is on.
|
|
|
Post by fun observaton on Mar 14, 2008 20:08:45 GMT -5
Could it possibly that this thread itself is one of the original Great TMB debates?
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Mar 14, 2008 20:11:45 GMT -5
|
|