1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

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

Discussion in 'BW OU' started by kd24, Apr 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WarriorPrince

    WarriorPrince

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    503
    Sounds like a great idea. I would love to see this, and I think it would be a great model for new users to follow in their future discussions. I'm guessing it'll be a sticky?

    Reading over the scoring and looking at that link reminded of the good ole' times when I used to be a high school debater.

    I think there should be a limit on content length (2200 or so chars for opening, 1200 or so for rebuttals) as well. Then the 10 posters will be forced to optimize their arguments, and will be deterred from any redundancy in posts.
  2. TaBuu

    TaBuu

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    373
    Totally poppin' into this craziness :]
  3. Darknut07

    Darknut07

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    I like this idea (with the specifics being worked out later of course). It would definitely force the debaters to focus on the crux of their arguments and leave out unnecessary information.
  4. False Sense

    False Sense

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    411
    Huh. This sounds like it has quite a lot of potential. I'll be interested in seeing how this develops.

    On another note, I suppose I would enjoy participating in this. I'm quite a logical individual and I'm pretty good at getting a point across, so I might work. I know no one will actually consider me for this, but it's worth trying.
  5. kakuna

    kakuna

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Messages:
    70
    ^
  6. Chillarmy

    Chillarmy

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    I'm totally in =]
  7. Lavos Spawn

    Lavos Spawn
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,022
    yeah uh i definitely want to be a part of this

    credentials:
    - won state of idaho varsity public forum debate (division a) 2013
    - placed in semifinals at alta pf debate 2013
    - placed in quarterfinals at gonzaga pf debate 2013
    - placed in quarterfinals at berkely pf debate 2013
    - qualified for entry to highly exclusive tournament of champions 2013

    mad
  8. HSA ♥

    HSA ♥ I am the God of the new world.

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    973
    lol pf.
  9. GCSChris

    GCSChris

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    434
    This would be cool to see.
  10. Bad Ass

    Bad Ass hello ruby in the dust
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winneris the 2nd Grand Slam Winner

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,383
    i'd love to do this if you want me!

    credentials:
    - could probably beat at least half of my 850 person school at a debate
    - conversational in spanish
    - once ate an entire large dominos pizza by myself
    - watched the entirety of dragonball, unabridged
    - can bench press at least 115 lbs
  11. Jayde

    Jayde
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    557
    lol policy fag
  12. Ezio

    Ezio .
    is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,133
  13. PttP

    PttP Shoutout to the sidewalk for keeping me off the streets
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    943
    I don't know why doublenikesocks's post got deleted but he brought up a valid point. If you need to include insults in your argument to make your point it's obvious that either a) your point sucks or b) you suck so it's definetely up there as a strikable offense. Unless the mods want to moderate the insult fest that is bound to happen then it should be a rule not to insult since a lot of debators use this method often.
  14. Lavos Spawn

    Lavos Spawn
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,022
    what you're referring to is called an "ad homenim" logical fallacy in which one debater attacks the other debater instead of the other debater's arguments alone to make their point. it's something that all high level debaters strive to avoid, but sometimes arguments are so unbearably daft that attacking the person who made them is hard to avoid.

    thanks for your input :toast:
  15. PttP

    PttP Shoutout to the sidewalk for keeping me off the streets
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    943
    So basically the debator has no self control.

    Yeah I don't see why it shouldn't be a strike, it literally does nothing to improve the situation, while definitely causing unnecessary actions. Also the post was more to kd24 and whoever runs the project more than those participating in the project since he kinda makes the rules but Thank you for acknowledging my input.

    edit: I didn't read RBGs little list thing so apparently it's covered never mind me the post deletion must have thrown me off
  16. Pocket

    Pocket Apo, the astronaut's best friend >:3
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,564
    ad hominem attacks or insults would be penalized with a strike or worse
  17. kd24

    kd24 yo daddy musta been a drug dealer? why, cuz you're dope
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,325
    Ginga deleted it but iirc, his post wasn't deleted on content, I think he attacked lavos spawn or something
  18. ginganinja

    ginganinja Member of the Gamefreak ORAS Balancing Team
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,801
    Ya, he called out Lavos Spawn, claiming he issues flaming and derogatory comments. I don't really care if thats right or wrong, the point is I don't accept that sort of thing and it potentially just opens up the opportunity for retaliation. Regardless, the OU moderators will watch the thread, taking care that flaming / insults won't happen.

    I would hope we don't see an ad hominem since we are selecting 10 intelligent users, but regardless, if one does occur, Pocket has brought up the action that will be taken.
  19. jpw234

    jpw234

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    188
    I would like to do this. I've been doing policy debate at the national level in high school and college for the last six years, including qualifying for the TOC in high school and breaking at CEDA in college. I've also been playing on PO/PS for the last three years, and had several moderately successful ladder teams (although no tournament success to speak of).
  20. Lavos Spawn

    Lavos Spawn
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,022
    that's actually really impressive
  21. Kidogo

    Kidogo

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    461
    I may be missing something but imo the whole idea of logical fallacies is not that you ban them. It's that when someone makes one you can call them out on it and that this detracts from the strength of their argument, while a cleverly concealed logical fallacy allows you to add non-existent support to your argument. Granted, ad homenim attacks outside of the context of the debate is basically just insulting the person, so yeah lol.
  22. yee

    yee
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,110
    I'd like to point out that Ad Hominem doesn't necessarily have to be an insult. It can also be making generalizations based on the person, like-

    "Well he would say that wouldn't he?"
    "Charles Manson wrote this song, so it is about murder"
    "He wants to ban Deo-D because he's ban happy"

    My personal opinion on the worst and most common fallacies (with help from Eo to seperate and name them) here are:

    1. Concern about invoking effects on other tiers-

    "If we ban Sand Veil Cacturne, we lessen it's performance in NU. We should attempt to balance the effects of banning Sand Veil in NU because it's not that much different for OU."

    -Both sides are required to agree to the basic idea that OU takes absolute priority on Smogon being the main metagame. If a ban would completely invalidate an already existing tier then for simplicity sake we wouldn't go through with it, but that just won't happen.

    2. Forecasting future metagames / suspects-

    -"BW2 is a terrible metagame, even if we ban Keldeo there are still 5-10 other pokes I find broken so none of them are worth the trouble"

    -"Banning Drizzle would cause an imbalance of weathers, leaving OU spiraling out of control"

    For simplicity sake, what Smogon does is ban anything >50% agreed upon to be broken in the current metagame, then deal with the potential problem if it arises. If there is agreement that something can't exist in a balanced metagame, we have nothing to lose by dealing with the problems losing it creates. If XY was out in a week maybe this would change, but that's not the case.

    3. Ignoring the big picture-

    "The banlist cannot be bigger than 10-15 pokemon. Therefore, we should not ban anything."

    "Removing Deo-D removes or cripples a currently existing playstyle. This makes the metagame less balanced."

    This is more of a broad fallacy, but the idea is that arguing about anything besides whether or not the suspect is broken is generally a no-no. There is no point in a 10 pokemon banlist if the consensus is no balanced metagame, and like the last one we remember that there is nothing to lose by banning a pokemon agreed to be broken, even if it hurts in the short term: it is in fact hurting us not to do it.


    There are other fallacies that I don't think should be worth noting, but I DO see them frequently, so to be sure please no "The pokemon is bad in Ubers" or "Your argument is illogical because I disagree with the subjective part" or "Luck / team matchup is a basic factor of pokemon, meaning that even assuming it were to be the main factor of games we couldn't make bans to reduce it."

    This is my 1k so please don't throw fallacies at this post unless your intentions are to add them to the list or just increase awareness of them! I'll also join in if you'll take me.
  23. lousy918

    lousy918

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    325
    i am interested
  24. Soul Fly

    Soul Fly IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
    is a Contributor to Smogon

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,933
    In.

    Credentials:

    - Made my first post in this forum on the meanest and baddest place in the forum. A suspect discussion. And continued on to make 60+ more without being being insulted/flamed or infracted into submission.

    - Laddering in PO/PS in an on-off manner for the past 5 years so I have seen many metagame shifts. (and I still believe gen 4 UU was the bestest meta EVER)

    -Bunch of other irl stuff but I'd rather not post because that would be like bragging about your Vienna ballet dancing win before a Street Dance throwdown. Online forum debates are a completely different creature.


    Edit: When does this start btw?
  25. superstar

    superstar

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    319
    Not really good enough (or have the time) to participate, but I'm going to enjoy watching. I like the idea of word limits, as character limits just encourage people to use simple words.

    I'd also really like to see discussion be forced to be five on five (or whatever), if more people are on one side, they're forced to argue for the opposite side. Arguing for the opposite side is an excellent way to see the flaws in your own arguments and thus make them stronger when you're debating in an actual suspect test or whatever.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)