A Debate Game Interest / (Sign-Up?) Thread

[kd24]

So I think this was Eo's idea but I lost the conversation and so I've probably horribly butchered it. Eo, if I'm way off on this, lemme know so I can try to start a different kind of thread. This is just an interest thread for a debate game while we wait on some kind of verdict on Landorus's status. I'll list the rules below.

- The OU Mods and I select 5 users for each side. We'd choose who by using categories like prior debating experience, legitimate playing experience, etc. The point is we want 10 of Smogon's best users duking it out.

- The debate will either fully be on Rain, or it would be on a multitude of current controversial subjects in OU. I think focusing on Rain would be better at first because it's highly controversial but if interest is high or we choose a certain variation of scoring, we could really do everything.

- I will totally link the logical fallacies page that was in whistle's sig before, that was totally awesome ONCE I GET IT, if not there's like 1000 I can link from online. EDIT: LINK IM JUST USING RBGS: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

- It's undecided on how the actual scoring or gameplay would work. Some ideas:

• Each person involved posts one opening post, and then selects one opposing post to respond to? Points awarded by the moderators and myself?
• The debate cycles through all 10 people, at the end of the round we award points on who had the best response/post. End Result 1: Each member with the lowest points for each group is eliminated? Variation [End Result 2]: Each group votes on 1 group member to eliminate or comes to a consensus on weakest link?
• A low moderated debate with a 3 strike system where debaters act freely. They can post what they want but if they use logical fallacies or don't put legitimate content in their post, they're given a strike.
• Maybe just each side is scored at the end, the scores tallied together and one group wins?
• I REALLY DONT KNOW THERES LIKE 1000 BETTER WAYS PROBABLY, PLEASE POST ;_____;

- The people chosen do the debates and it's all good and shit and just an idea of some possible awards:

• Community Contributor
• PR Access if it isn't already granted
• Custom Titles
• Props from me, maybe we'll do something on Facebook/YT/etc about you being a debating stud?

These debates serve a few purposes ideally:
- A fun way for people to learn how to debate and argue more efficiently
- Higher level discussion on aspects of the metagame for Council / public consideration
- A compiled list of the arguments for and against these aspects
- I DONT HAVE TO DO TOO MUCH WORK

Post if you're interested and we'll see about setting this up. Just to make it clear, if we do these, the floor is open only to people selected, the point is for you newer guys or inexperienced guys to actually get a legitimate experience by watching these guys at work. I hope they don't suck but I have a lot of faith in our users, if we have the interest.

[LonelyNess]

I would like to do this.

If you doubt my credentials, I'd be more than happy to debate you on the subject.

[The Unlucky one]

i'm really interested in seeing this as it will give a lot of newer people knowledge of the top debates in the current OU banning process. It may be a long shot due to my miniscule amount of reputation in comparison to other people but I would really love to be a part of this.
EDIT: I just want to mention that i really want to partake in this discussion as debating is a really strong fruit of smogon that I would love to partake in as much as possible. For knowledge on my debating stuff, I have partaken in debates in places such as serenesforest and others among the likes for Fire Emblem. I think I have a few debate posts here.

[cjrocker]

This is a great idea and I really hope it goes through. I know I'm nowhere near a potential candidate but I would love to watch it happen regardless.

[Dcae]

I agree with Unlucky One, this would be great to introduce new users to show how stuff are debated, the lofic behind top players' arguments, and a general idea of people's opinons. Seeing some of the best players laying out their reasoning and ideas out would be something that I'd follow very closely. I also would love to be part of it, but I know I'm not a top player and have very little experience compared to some off the heavyweights of OU. I look forward to seeing these debates and I hope it's a successful project.

[LilOuOn]

Oh, wow. Seems really good! I'm not so popular or anything but it would be awesome if I could join.

[Kidogo]

I am SO in for this. I've done debating in school and love a good argument, and feel very strongly about rain broken/non-brokenness. It would be super cool if I could get in for this!

[Princess Bri]

i'm up 4 it ye

[NfskMjmMal]

Originally Posted by Fat kd24

• Each person involved posts one opening post, and then selects one opposing post to respond to? Points awarded by the moderators and myself?
• The debate cycles through all 10 people, at the end of the round we award points on who had the best response/post. End Result 1: Each member with the lowest points for each group is eliminated? Variation [End Result 2]: Each group votes on 1 group member to eliminate or comes to a consensus on weakest link?
• A low moderated debate with a 3 strike system where debaters act freely. They can post what they want but if they use logical fallacies or don't put legitimate content in their post, they're given a strike.
• Maybe just each side is scored at the end, the scores tallied together and one group wins?
• I REALLY DONT KNOW THERES LIKE 1000 BETTER WAYS PROBABLY, PLEASE POST ;_____;

I don't like the third or fourth options. I don't think the third option will go well because if we're choosing Smogon's best to debate, it's extremely unlikely they'll have bad arguments and stuff. I don't like the fourth idea because it's very possible to have, for example, eight people on one side and two people on another (and of course you can't force people to take a side to make it 5 vs 5). Because of this, I think individuals would work better than one side against another.

I think a combination of the first and second options could work. All 10 people will get to post once. For each post, a panel of judges will rate the post on a scale from 1-10 or something (with 10 being the best). After all of the judges have voted, the average rating among all of the judges is calculated, and that's how many points the debater receives.

I like the idea. It's an interesting take on suspects. I think everyone, not just newer battlers, will be able to learn many things from these debates!

[GatoDelFuego]

This would be one of the coolest projects to be a part of, but take a look through my history of posts in the suspect discussion threads and you'll see who's not going to be debating here...

All in all this sounds like a really, really cool idea. I can't wait for it to start!

may as well say I'm interested, though...

[Lady Alex]

This is a really cool idea. I've been waiting for a new, fun project to follow/participate in. Regarding eliminations, I think using the point system as the deciding factor would be best, preventing any unnecessary hard feelings between users (though I think most of us are mature enough to not to get butt-hurt about it lol).

[Morgenstern]

Cant wait to read the debate. c:

[The Great Mighty Doom]

This is an amazing idea and I'd love to be a part of this :)

[Ojama]

I'd love to be a part of this as well =)

[ShellShocker]

Are there any specific qualifications for joining? I'd love to participate and I've done debating at school for a few years. On the other hand, I'm quite new to the board so if you don't want me to partake I perfectly understand. Good luck!

[BKC]

I

[Harsha]

I am interested in a debate game.

[Eo Ut Mortus]

No worries, you pretty much got the gist of it.

Originally Posted by Fat kd24

- It's undecided on how the actual scoring or gameplay would work. Some ideas:

• Each person involved posts one opening post, and then selects one opposing post to respond to? Points awarded by the moderators and myself?
• The debate cycles through all 10 people, at the end of the round we award points on who had the best response/post. End Result 1: Each member with the lowest points for each group is eliminated? Variation [End Result 2]: Each group votes on 1 group member to eliminate or comes to a consensus on weakest link?
• A low moderated debate with a 3 strike system where debaters act freely. They can post what they want but if they use logical fallacies or don't put legitimate content in their post, they're given a strike.
• Maybe just each side is scored at the end, the scores tallied together and one group wins?
• I REALLY DONT KNOW THERES LIKE 1000 BETTER WAYS PROBABLY, PLEASE POST ;_____;

My initial idea was along the lines of option #3. Players are given ~10 points to start with, and they lose a certain number of points per logical fallacy (like infractions). If you wanted to simplify it, though, you could make everything worth the same, I suppose (or maybe assign values after seeing how it goes). Activity would be enforced; players would lose points for not posting in a given period of time. Players who lose all their points would be eliminated.

First, I think elimination is necessary so that BadDebater 2777 doesn't continue to clog up the thread with mediocre points. This would limit possible options to #2 and #3. I prefer #3 because it allows for a method to enforce activity while not restricting posting; furthermore, judging is less strenuous/subjective--you'd only have to judge whether or not a post meets the criteria for a fallacy. #2 does have more structure, though, which you may or may not consider ideal.

Other things:

- I initially wanted to allow everyone who signed up to participate (BATTLE ROYALE), though starting small would probably be a better idea.

- I suggest creating a number of "fallacies" tailored to Pokemon discussion. i.e. no unnecessary / ludicrous comparisons to alternate tiered Pokemon.

- Alternatively (or additionally), as the debate progresses, you could add fallacies that you see arise that weren't covered by the initial list. i.e. BadDebater 2777 and LoLAficionado7086 and Ojama all say that Politoed should be OU because it's terrible in Ubers, a fallacy not (yet) covered by the rules; a fallacy is therefore added called "Fundamental Misunderstanding of Tiering."

Anyway, good luck; I'm glad you're putting this idea into action!

[jpw234]

I'd love to join. I've been doing debate at the middle school, high school and college levels for the last eight years, and been playing PS/PO for the last three.

[Curtains]

in?

[fatty]

love the idea, i'd definitely be interested.

[idiotfrommars]

Put me in coach.

[undisputed]

Eo came up with the idea? You mean Lavos, right?

[EspeonX]

This looks like it would be a solid project if it were to go ahead. I do like the idea of a Weakest Link debate game as well. I'd follow this, and I am looking forward to any debates.

[alexwolf]

Count me in for this!