From: Mermaid (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 15:14:30 MDT
My reasons:
The primary objective of this little project is not conduct and chair a formal debate. We have no idea about the potential of the group because somewhere along the line, we decided to take turns between playing the audience to a rant and play the one who is making the rant amidst insulting others.
The reason people cannot choose the topic is because topics like 'television retards intellect' are so casual that it is so easy to take either stance. It is also possible to argue for both cases. As the first installment of the debate exercise proved, people are perfectly capable of making arguments for AND against the same topic. Now, this is exciting. That we can rationally tear our own argument is something worthy of pride. A little suspense is good for one's health.
Why cant people choose their opponents or partners? My respone: sure, they can...but why cant we try without the players choosing their own partners? As a group, we should be able to interact and communicate with *everyone* in the group. I suspect that will ease the friction and sabotage the actions that keep the group from ever growing closer. They will know their partner and opponents three days before they get to present their case, anyways. I'd say that its perfectly reasonable to get to know your team assignment and opponents three days before the first presentation. I have been to debates where the topic is assigned just minutes before the debate commences. This exercise may even introduce unknowns to each other. For example, I dont think prometheus and Michelle know each other too well. (as an example..no pressure, prometheus and Michelle.) But if they sign up and I (my rules, you see...not Mr.Roberts') pair them together against the other team, I am sure they will be introduced to each other. I ask t
his of everyone in this forum, we are supposed to be this 'church of virus'..right?..how many people in this group do you *really* know? If not the entire group..just take the reputation system..those signed up in the rep. system..do you know the other 48? How can there be *any* glue to bind us together if we all insist on playing the audience ALL the time?
I am not saying that my debate format is the most clever or that its the most accurate...in the formal sense even... But then again, it wasnt intended to be that way. I really have no idea about most members of cov. I dont know about their capabilities, in debate or otherwise. It is highly unlikely that many here will be willing to jump straight into formal debate with Robert's rules. Parlimentary debate, as far as I have read, requires minimal rules and even less training. It is always possible to train people with the rules of the formal debate, but it is not that easy to get people in a group involved in a group activity.
If there is no interest, I will simply abandon this and try again a few weeks later. But I am not going to stick to a strict and rigid set of formal debate rules AND introduce topics that are likely to inflame passions and flame wars. We do have a history. Its not bad all the time, but it can be better. Baby steps and miles to walk. If you stumble on the first step and stop walking, its unlikely that you'll ever reach the destination. My two cents. Take it or leave it.
---- This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29399> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 15:14:42 MDT