Kurbijkurne forums: Soli tuvāk fantāzijai

Laipni lūdzam, viesi ( Pieteikties | Reģistrēties )

> Talking about Tolkien - forum rules (noteikumi)

Foruma pamatvaloda – angļu. Ja nepieciešams, palīdzību tulkošanā vari lūgt modiem.

Communication on this forum – basically in English.

Šiame forume bendraujama angliškai.

Käesolevas foorumis toimub suhtlus inglise keeles.

> Latvia vs Lithuania Debating Championship, Morgoth was a Poor Strategist
iesūtīt 27.02.2005 21:26
Raksts #1

Cep speķi Dūdijam

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05

International Champtionship Debate #1

Welcome to the first International Debate between the Latvians and the Lithuanians! I am Elk, the judge of this competition; if you are from the Plaza, you will (currently) know me as Túrin. To start, here are the topic official rules:


Morgoth was a poor strategist.


Each country has a team. In the team they have an equal number of main debaters (starters) and an unlimited number of subs. Teams select their captain, who will write the opening post for the team.

Starting the Debate

1. The judge decides on the topic of the debate and announces it in the debate thread. The teams have one week for preparation.
2. After a week, the time counting starts and the proposition team (the hosting team) is expected to post their opening statement within time limit.

The Debate
1. No IC, therefore no ‘spectators’ allowed. All out-of-context posts should be deleted without warning.
2. No editing of posts allowed.
3. After the judge has posted the topic and before posting their first posts, the team captains should post their rosters.
4. The teams post Prop, Op, Prop, Op…
5. It is up to the teams how they organize their arguments, but there are certain rules to be sticked to:

Prop 1st post, Op 1st post
Aim: Outlining Proposing/Opposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as space allows. The Opposing team cannot rebutt the arguments put forward in the Proposing team’s first post.
Prop 2nd, Op2nd (also 3rd) Aims: Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments. Only two rebuttals allowed in one team’s post. Opponent’s rebuttals can be rebutted.
Prop closing statement, Op closing statement
(Preferably written by the team captain) Aim: Enforce team's arguments. It may be done by summarizing your arguments, by rebutting the last rebuttals of the opponent or in some other way, but no new rebuttals can be made.

6. Colour codes may be used by the team to organize their posts. In this case, the codes should be posted at the beginning of each post. This section is not included in the word count.
7. Rebuttals should be separated from the main arguments. The team may choose whether to include headings “Main argument”, “Closing statement” etc., but headings “Rebuttal #1”, “Rebuttal #2” are required for the purpose of separation.
8. Time limit for the post to appear in the thread is 48 hours. In case a sub is called (which should be done openly in the thread), another 8 hours are added to the time remaining on the clock. The judge is expected to inform the debaters about the date and time their post is due.
9. Word limit is 2000 words for each main post and 500 words for the Closing Statement, excluding colour codes and all the formatting codes, including Headings and quotes.


Every post (except the closing statements) is rated in the following categories, 5 point scale (5 - outstanding, 4 -very good, 3-ok, 2-somewhat lacking 1-poor 0-nonexistant)

*Staying on topic
*Team spirit/team unity
*Organisation (how easy it is to follow the author's thought)
*Choice of arguments and rebuttal points.

Plus, each team is rated in the following categories:

*Overall strategy (how well posts were organized to allocage enough space for arguments and rebuttals. How well the chances to rebut opponents arguments and rebuttals were used)
*Overall choice of arguments and rebuttal points
*Strength of the Closing Statement


To expand a bit on how I'd be judging - the rules are pretty straightforward: The first poster should introduce a number of arguments and support them as thoughroughly as s/he can, the second poster should continue in like fashion, and the 3rd should come in as a 'sweeper' and tie any loose ends, solidify any arguments that might need more support, etc. A strong, authoritative ending should also be included.

But to elaborate on my personal style: I think there are two part of debate, one is logic, the other is passion. Logic is important, I want to see you fully reason out your points. But the other is passion, get into your words, make be believe that you are utterly convinced of their truth. That is the essense of debate, to me. In every one that I have been in, I still believe the side that I argued no matter of the outcome (or maybe it's because I'm stubborn tongue.gif).

The first post is due 48 hours from this post. I'm looking forward to it!

(PS: I'm sorry for being late with this, it totally slipped my mind!)

Šo rakstu rediģēja Elk: 27.02.2005 21:26
Go to the top of the page
+Citēt rakstu
2 Lapas V  < 1 2  
Sākt jaunu pavedienu
Atbildes (20 - 23)
iesūtīt 31.03.2005 13:32
Raksts #21

Studē augstākās pārvērtības

Grupa: Izraidītie
Pievienojās: 29.05.04
Kur: Rīga

By the way.. *feels confused*.. shouldn't there be 71 points for Latvians? huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Citēt rakstu
iesūtīt 31.03.2005 13:49
Raksts #22

Istari māceklis

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 29.12.03
GP eksperts 2006

CITĀTS(Nulukkizdin @ 31.03.2005 14:32)
By the way.. *feels confused*.. shouldn't there be 71 points for Latvians?  huh.gif

Agronoms had 21 point, so yes, it would be 71. But... should we be so picky about it?

I would like to express huge and warm thank you to my teammates - especially all those, who sat up late that night and helped to prepare that unfortunate second post of ours smile.gif You were great - and despite how the post turned out in the end - I am still certain, it was created by wonderful team working smile.gif

And I am thankful to our honorable opponents as well. It certainly was an interesting expirence - and at least some of your arguments definetly came as a suprise for me smile.gif

I am not sure, if it would be OK to thank the judge now... But I will anyway smile.gif Thank you for the time you have spent reading our debate, and thank you for the enlightening commentaries you left to us at the end of the debate smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Citēt rakstu
iesūtīt 31.03.2005 16:48
Raksts #23

Izrāda pirmās maģijas pazīmes

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 31.01.05

I smell corruption tongue.gif

No, seriously, it was great. No matter what the result is, thank you, our opponents, my teammates, and the JUDGE!

Anyone willing to tackle another topic? By the way, drop by to our MB for another possible international project...
Go to the top of the page
+Citēt rakstu
iesūtīt 01.04.2005 19:10
Raksts #24

Angel of Mayhem

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 23.05.04
Kur: stoned
GP eksperts 2007

yay!!! we won!! *prances around and starts dancing jigga*

No seriously it was great to read and participate in the debates!
Thank you all, judge, my teammates and opponents, all who made this debate enjoyable and interesting.

*dances again*
Go to the top of the page
+Citēt rakstu

2 Lapas V  < 1 2
Atbildēt pavedienāSākt jaunu pavedienu
1 lietotāji/s lasa šo pavedienu (1 viesi un 0 anonīmie lietotāji)
0 biedri:


RSS Lo-Fi versija Pašlaik ir: 22.04.2024 17:32