A D&ST idea (maybe on old one?)

2008-08-24 19:37:13

#1

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6775|...

A live debate: Vote on a debatable topic, vote on the debaters, vote on judges, vote on a time, hold a debate over something teamspeak, skype, etc. People listen in or listen to a recording afterward. Winner gets ultimate bragging rights.

I think it would make a great event; hearing the conviction in individual voices and taking a bit of that internet safeguard out.

Like it? Hate it? Has this been done? Someone run with it.

2008-08-24 19:38:40

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6405|what

No chance.

It will end up two people shouting at each other.

And I don't want to listen to lowing.

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-08-24 19:44:55)

2008-08-24 19:39:26

#3

Roc18: `; +655|6043|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY

TheAussieReaper wrote:
No chance.

It's will end up two people shouting at each other.

And I don't want to listen to lowing.

or marines

https://g.bf3stats.com/pc/gcv8Vckg/roc18.png

BF3s.com Public Leaderboard

2008-08-24 19:46:10

#4

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6723

A very good suggestion.

Although I would observe that there is a difference between being a good orator and being a good debater (in the 'Internet' sense of the word). I assume many people widely-read and research into topics in order to form an opinion and gather references to substantiate their posts... this would be extremely hard to do in a real-time 'live' debate. If it was announced in advance and gave participants time to thoroughly prepare their presentation/contention, then I think it really could be a huge success.

Would be particularly interesting to see how some of the more 'succinct' D&ST posters such as Usmarine transfer this enviable tact into oratorical rhetoric .

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-24 19:47:31)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-08-24 20:03:31

#5

Joey S.: Banned; +6|5980

TheAussieReaper wrote:
No chance.

It will end up two people shouting at each other.

And I don't want to listen to lowing.

This and it takes most D&ST'ers a while to accumulate a proper response.

2008-08-24 20:06:08

#6

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6775|...

Joey S. wrote:
This and it takes most D&ST'ers a while to accumulate a proper response.

That would be part of the challenge; no time for googling or Wikipedia (or in some cases fringe conspiracy sites). Well sometime, assuming the individual is quick.

Last edited by jsnipy (2008-08-24 20:06:28)

2008-08-24 20:06:26

#7

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6781|Global Command

I like it but I can't get my mike to work.

2008-08-24 20:07:08

#8

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6775|...

ATG wrote:
I like it but I can't get my mike to work.

I'm sure the Tech team can work you through that

2008-08-24 20:08:49

#9

jord: Member; +2,382|6930|The North, beyond the wall.

jsnipy wrote:
Joey S. wrote:
This and it takes most D&ST'ers a while to accumulate a proper response.
That would be part of the challenge; no time for googling or Wikipedia (or in some cases fringe conspiracy sites). Well sometime, assuming the individual is quick.

I've never googled or Wikipedia'd once in a debate. I'm the motherfucking master of debates.

Joking aside. Yes... Joking. I can't see it. I mean once it starts to get even slightly offensive the other person is just gonna start with the "LALALALALALA SHUT UP NO IT'S NOT FUCK YOU FUCK FUCK YOU LALALALA".

Unless you have a debate between 2 people were the subject neither really feels strongly about or really cares.

2008-08-24 20:10:54

#10

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6775|...

jord wrote:
I've never googled or Wikipedia'd once in a debate. I'm the motherfucking master of debates.

Joking aside. Yes... Joking. I can't see it. I mean once it starts to get even slightly offensive the other person is just gonna start with the "LALALALALALA SHUT UP NO IT'S NOT FUCK YOU FUCK FUCK YOU LALALALA".

Unless you have a debate between 2 people were the subject neither really feels strongly about or really cares.

I feel that the topic should somewhat secretive and revealed moments prior.

2008-08-24 20:11:21

#11

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6959|67.222.138.85

I prefer my debates in slow internet motion. If there were willing candidates it would be quite interesting however.

I've always thought we should do something more competitive on the forums. I would be all for an "arena" style debate, I think it would be quite amusing.

2008-08-24 20:13:53

#12

jord: Member; +2,382|6930|The North, beyond the wall.

jsnipy wrote:
jord wrote:
I've never googled or Wikipedia'd once in a debate. I'm the motherfucking master of debates.

Joking aside. Yes... Joking. I can't see it. I mean once it starts to get even slightly offensive the other person is just gonna start with the "LALALALALALA SHUT UP NO IT'S NOT FUCK YOU FUCK FUCK YOU LALALALA".

Unless you have a debate between 2 people were the subject neither really feels strongly about or really cares.
I feel that the topic should somewhat secretive and revealed moments prior.

I can see why, but putting myself in the position of the debater, of which there is no chance I will be btw. I'd be waiting on hand for your subject then you can tell me it's debate whether I think Kosovo should have declared independence... Well I'd have to tell you I know nothing about that situation whatsoever.

2008-08-24 20:16:45

#13

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6775|...

jord wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
jord wrote:
I've never googled or Wikipedia'd once in a debate. I'm the motherfucking master of debates.

Joking aside. Yes... Joking. I can't see it. I mean once it starts to get even slightly offensive the other person is just gonna start with the "LALALALALALA SHUT UP NO IT'S NOT FUCK YOU FUCK FUCK YOU LALALALA".

Unless you have a debate between 2 people were the subject neither really feels strongly about or really cares.
I feel that the topic should somewhat secretive and revealed moments prior.
I can see why, but putting myself in the position of the debater, of which there is no chance I will be btw. I'd be waiting on hand for your subject then you can tell me it's debate whether I think Kosovo should have declared independence... Well I'd have to tell you I know nothing about that situation whatsoever.

good point, perhaps after picking who will debate, submissions for topics will be voted upon.

Last edited by jsnipy (2008-08-24 20:17:46)

2008-08-24 20:23:52

#14

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6770|Montucky

i like the idea, it'd be interesting to listen in on

2008-08-24 22:05:59

#15

Home: Section.80; +447|7100|Seattle, Washington, USA

That is a pretty cool idea, it'd definitely be interesting. I would listen in for sure.

2008-08-24 22:06:31

#16

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6595|tropical regions of london

you euros sound wierd

2008-08-24 22:07:29

#17

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6405|what

^ red neck

2008-08-24 22:09:11

#18

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6595|tropical regions of london

im sure aussies sound just as bad

2008-08-24 22:15:47

#19

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6884|949

Uzique wrote:
A very good suggestion.

Although I would observe that there is a difference between being a good orator and being a good debater (in the 'Internet' sense of the word). I assume many people widely-read and research into topics in order to form an opinion and gather references to substantiate their posts... this would be extremely hard to do in a real-time 'live' debate. If it was announced in advance and gave participants time to thoroughly prepare their presentation/contention, then I think it really could be a huge success.

Would be particularly interesting to see how some of the more 'succinct' D&ST posters such as Usmarine transfer this enviable tact into oratorical rhetoric .

A proper debate isn't spur of the moment - you are given a topic and side, and research is done. Then you are given a chance to present your side and respond to the other's - like the option you mentioned. In that simple sense there could be a predetermined amount of time for each specific debate. In fact, it could be implemented in forum-thread form, simply with time limits.

Either way it could be an interesting plan. I would be in favor of strict debate criteria and no winner determined, to keep the focus of the debates on the dissemination of information.

2008-08-24 22:32:51

#20

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6968

Theres a skype thing where a moderator could allow who to talk, that would stop people from yelling at each other.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2008-08-24 22:44:20

#21

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6902

I'm not a reg but I'm down..

2008-08-24 22:45:06

#22

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6595|tropical regions of london

like n'ham

2008-08-24 22:49:28

#23

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6902

God Save the Queen wrote:
like n'ham

amen to that

(amen the n'ham way)

2008-08-24 23:02:49

#24

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6967|US

I like the idea. The debators should have time to prepare...otherwise the risk of the debate turning into a shouting match increases greatly.

2008-08-24 23:39:46

#25

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6917|NT, like Mick Dundee

God Save the Queen wrote:
im sure aussies sound just as bad

Hey fuck you, the aussie accent is epic.

WANANOTHA SHRIMP MATE? ILL THRO ONE ON THA BARBIE!

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

Like it	72%	72% - 39
Hate it	27%	27% - 15
Total: 54

BF2S Forums A D&ST idea (maybe on old one?)

Poll

TheAussieReaper wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Joey S. wrote:

ATG wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Joey S. wrote:

jord wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

jord wrote:

jord wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

jord wrote:

Uzique wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Board footer