Total topics: 22
The presidential debate is tomorrow (thursday) at 9pm eastern 8 pm central, airing on CNN.
If you want to talk shit while listening to it or just discuss it as it happens, I will be in the discord chat to commentate.
Nobody that joins has to have a particular political leaning though and we should all be respectful of each other's views while simultaneously having thick skin. Join here
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
1. Do not ever be or debate a libertarian
Literally every debate is about the role of government and is an excuse to debate the role of government.
2. Do not ever be or debate a nihilist
Every debate on morality will be about how there is none or some shot.
3. Do not ever be or debate ideologues
They literally only ever debate the same thing repeatedly.
Debates commonly done by ideologues with no life.
1. Anything to do with abortion
The only arguments they give and it's probably true. Killing baby = bad
2. The Quran is not corrupted
They prove this by ignoring that Islam has actively destroyed about 15 other versions of the Quran but they lie and claim those are commentaries. Meanwhile destroy any evidence they existed.
3. Male circumcision is bad
If you see this debate an ideologue who feels like the Dr maybe cut off too much of his dick is trying to debate you to feel better about having a small dick.
4. Global warming either side
5. Flat earth
6. Vaccine either side
Do not engage with these people. They all use circular logic and are bad debaters but despite being bad, somehow take a lot of effort to defeat and you lose 10 IQ points every time you accept these debates.
On the other hand. You can also use this as a guide on how to be very tough for even the best debaters to defeat, but most likely they will just avoid you unless you can trick them into a libertarian or nihilist debate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I saw 7k do this and since I’m going with a debate against him right now, I thought what better way than to copy him and also ask what could I do better. So what does everyone think? I only have two debates so I’m not sure if that is a lot to go off of.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
In this chapter, we will discuss what a debate is and why it's important to engage in one. A debate is a collaborative conversation where two or more individuals present their viewpoints and supporting evidence regarding a specific topic or idea. The ultimate objective is to reach a well-reasoned and informed conclusion, based on the collective knowledge and experiences of all parties involved. It's important to distinguish between a debate and an argument, as arguments can often involve emotional appeals and a desire to win at all costs, leading to hostility and animosity between parties. Frequently, conversations start as debates but end up becoming arguments due to the failure to follow the necessary steps for a productive debate. Not following these requirements significantly increases the likelihood of an unproductive argument. This chapter focuses on the concept of a debate, while the next chapter discusses the prerequisites for a productive debate. Only after establishing a clear understanding of the purpose and benefits of a debate can we explore the necessary steps for having one.
A debate is a forum for collective conscious development, where multiple parties gather to discuss a topic or idea, sharing new information to construct a more significant idea than any one individual could create. The objective is to contribute to the collective knowledge of the group, resulting in better solutions and theories for addressing problems or finding answers. In a productive debate, participants are open to learning from others and sharing their own knowledge to improve everyone's understanding. By sharing information, all involved gain a greater understanding of the world, leading to improved solutions and theories for solving problems. Unfortunately, not all debates are productive. The aim of this book is to develop debating skills that foster productive collaboration and solutions, rather than hostile arguments that hinder our ability to communicate productively with other parties, now, or in the future.
A productive debate involves constructive and respectful dialogue, not just out of a moral obligation to show respect, but because without valuing and respecting others, they may not continue to contribute valuable knowledge and wisdom. I’m not referring to the knowledge of their words, but rather their underlying wisdom. Their mere existence is a construction of wisdom from their life experience, and they should be respected as such. Everyone's life experiences shape their beliefs and ideas, so it's important to listen and learn from others with an open mind. However, blindly accepting others' opinions as facts is not productive. Instead, one should strive to understand the fundamental principles underlying others' perspectives, which is essentially their life experience distilled into beliefs. By combining this understanding with one's own life experiences, a more competent theory can be formed that incorporates both. By comprehending why someone holds a certain belief, one gains access to their distilled life experience. The goal is not to adopt others' beliefs, but to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
Many individuals rely on product ratings to make purchasing decisions, as they trust that the rating communicates the life experience of others with the product. By sharing this experience, they hope to avoid making the same mistakes. However, people don't simply value the words of others, but rather the underlying meaning behind them. For example, if a competitor writes a negative review, the reader understands their motives and is less likely to trust their words. Instead, people extract the life experience of genuine dislike from their words, rather than accepting their words as wisdom. In essence, a person's words are a low-resolution interpretation of their abstract life experience. Wisdom does not reside in the words themselves, but rather in the implicit meaning and life experience that underlies them.
A person's beliefs reflect their life experience and accumulated knowledge. Understanding why someone holds certain beliefs is like adding their life experience to your own. By comprehending a person’s beliefs and decisions, valuable knowledge, and perspectives from another’s life experience can be gained without personal experience. Engaging in respectful and constructive debates with others allows for collective knowledge and experience, leading to more intelligent decision-making and problem-solving. Through logically and critically minded debates, individuals can gather the life experiences of many, becoming as conscious as if they had lived all those lives combined. This is how cities and iPhones are built, by gathering the past consciousness of others within books or verbal communication, it’s possible to add the consciousness of another to your own. In debates, it's crucial to understand others' perspectives and to extract the principles or life experience behind them so you can add them to your own. Time and life experience are precious in developing beliefs and knowledge. Debating with others can extract the principles behind their beliefs, helping to gain knowledge and understand how their experiences have shaped them. This collective knowledge and experience lead to increased intelligence beyond that of any individual. Proper debate is essential to gain collective knowledge and experience and become more knowledgeable than anyone could be alone.
When individuals engage in debates with the sole intention of winning, they fail to grasp the essence of what debating truly represents and hinders the development of collective human consciousness. It’s essential to avoid becoming this person as they are unwilling to learn and cannot benefit from the conversation. However, their information and point of view may still be valuable to others willing to learn and adapt. Therefore, it's crucial to only participate in a debate if willing to respect others' thoughts and opinions and contribute to collective knowledge. All participants should adhere to standard humanitarian policy and moral principles for productive debates. This involves each person contributing their life experiences and truths while allowing others to do the same. By forming a collective consciousness, individuals can build their own conclusions based on shared experiences and arrive at the best outcome for knowledge. Anyone who does not agree to these principles should not participate in the debate.
In summary, a debate is meant to arrive at a logical and informed conclusion based on the exchange of ideas between participants, while arguments often involve emotional appeals and a desire to win at all costs, without necessarily being logical or productive. A productive debate involves respectful and constructive dialogue, where participants are willing to listen and learn from others while acknowledging that beliefs and ideas are shaped by life experience and knowledge. By comprehending why someone holds a certain belief, one can understand the distilled knowledge of their life and gain valuable knowledge and perspectives from another's life experience without personally experiencing them. Engaging in debates with others allows for collective knowledge and experience, leading to more intelligent decision-making and problem-solving.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
STILL HOT AND IN THE OVEN
I will be happy to quote and paste my Round 1 here when it's done to aid this thread's evolution. I've posted something similar a couple times before, people seem to never catch my position so it's time to lay it all out. Juicy rating to take from me if you think the topic is easy for Con.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
@RationalMadman
Offer me 3 topics and the sides you want on them. I'll pick one of them.
Original response here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8895/posts/374093
TOPIC ONE:
Racism is not a driving factor in (in)equality in the United States; any perceived disparity has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
TOPIC TWO:
Social-psychology and the Law play a central role in the Abortion debate that is oft ignored. So much so that those who advocate for the pro-life position believe abortion is legal murder and that [a] full-blown "human being" exists at conception worthy of all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law (in other words, they confuse cellular life with personhood in favor of ignoring the 14th Amendment - AND - fetal viability).
TOPIC THREE:
The issues surrounding violent encounters with police where black (mostly, and specifically) and brown people are concerned have more to do with the culture of those minorities and very little to do with the culture of policing. The social-psychology of policing is nuanced and more reactionary than proactive. As a result, their actions are predicated on the "in the field" (boots on the ground) circumstances on a case-by-case basis (e.g. no two traffic stops are equally the same; each one is always unpredictable).
As I agree with each topic I listed/put forth, I will take the PRO side on each.
- We will need to agree on the timeliness of responses (how many days to research and respond; takes time to read, formulate and write a cogent response).
- We will need to agree that when citing sources, so that each of us understand the context of each citation, no less than two quotes from each citation must be used giving context/relevance to why the cited source was even used as it directly relates to the argument/point being proffered.
- We will need to agree on no actual fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument (valid observations of attitude, behavior and demeanor are excluded).
- We will need to agree not to write lengthy paragraphs, but rather break down the points so its easily readable and coherent.
- We will need to agree to respond point by point and not convolute the discussion. In other words, do not take A1 and retort on it after you retort to A6. An orderly debate/discussion is necessary for not only our benefit, but the readers/voters as well.
- We will need to agree on credible sources where the author(s) have demonstrated their veracity by a clear bibliography of research conducted to substantiate their respective pieces. Opinion Editorials have to be judged on the sources they cite. Absolutely NO genetic fallacies will be used or tolerated.
- We will need to agree to stay on the subject agreed to and no deviations off the subject matter (no red herring or non-sequitur arguments).
- We will need to agree to keep as much subjective emotions out of the agreed upon topic so as to keep the format as productive as possible. Only objectivity backed by verifiable facts followed by the citations given to back each claim up.
If you have any terms to add, please do so. Otherwise, that's about all (the most important ones that come to mind) that I can think of off the bat.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Starting from Greatest to Least.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Trolling seems to be tolerated by the ever so competent moderation on this site. This is the likely conclusion many will derive after watching users like ebuc and Shila essentially run wild within the forum. This to me, is less impending than preventing idiots from casting subsequent votes when their voting has already been detected as a problem.
For instance: users like FLRW continue to cast troll votes on debates despite having his votes removed multiple times for the same reasons. Because the moderators on this platform are very intelligent, they made the obviously brilliant decision not to do anything, allowing him to cast a troll vote on a debate which could not be removed in time, drastically altering the outcome.
Are you not supposed to act in accordance with basic logic, you may be asking in your head. This is generally true, but some people are actually too good to think about issues this way, and instead, use superior methods like feelings or emotions. So here is proposition x:
- There ought to be an immediate suspension of voting permissions after the incidence of a troll vote cast deliberately, in a debate where votes are eligible for moderation.
And here is the formalized argument for proposition x:
P1) If any user violates a regulation which they are expected to be aware of and act in accordance with, there ought to be penalties to address such violations.
P2) If a voter has voting permissions, before casting a vote, it is expected that they are familiar with the voting regulations of this platform.
P3) Casting a troll vote, demonstrates under this assumption, a deliberate violation of regulations this user is familiar and acquainted with.
C1) Therefore, there ought to be penalties to address such violations.
P4) Such penalties should reasonably attempt to deter the specific problem which the users actions create for the given platform.
P5) Revoking voting permissions best reasonably attempts to deter the specific problem created by P3, and C1.
C2) Therefore, such penalties ought to include, but not necessarily be limited to, an immediate revocation of voting permissions.
- I struggle to see how this argument is unsound. For its purposes, a troll vote can be defined as any vote that does not qualify as an attempt to meet the voting standards established in the code of conduct.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Online debating has been a hobby of mine for 15 years. I come back to it and take a break from it. It seems like a major pain point is how long it takes me to write arguments.
I could easily spend a half hour reading and digesting my opponent's argument, and thinking of counterarguments. 45 minutes writing. And then another 45 minutes proofreading. And that's easily 2 hours spent. On a piece of writing, that looks like it should've been written in 20 minutes.
And probably could've been written in 20 minutes if that word count were applied to any other type of writing (essay, blog, poem, short story, etc). Am I the only one that has this issue? Tips for improving at this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
- First of all, anybody I used to know still lurking around here?
- It seems nobody wants to debate me despite my soliciting efforts... I've been away a couple of years, & I've already noticed a huge change of attitudes. Regardless, this is a debate website, so let's get debating. I am Muslim, cultivated in an Islamic Tradition, my primary interest for debate. I realize most here have an aversion towards debating Islam related topics, maybe this post will make it a little bit more compelling. Although I'm interested in debating any Islam related topics (religion, theology, history, law, philosophy...etc), this is an initial list of ideas:
General:
God Is (God, as defined in the Islamic tradition of course)
Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet
The Quran is faithfully preserved
The Quran is a true revelation
Islam is a religion of peace
The Hadith tradition is genuine
Christianity vs. Islam:
Tawhid vs. Trinity
Quran vs. Bible preservation
Quran vs. NT preservation
Truth of Quran vs. Bible
Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories
Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets
Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity
Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity
Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity
Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity
Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity
History of Muslims vs. Christians
Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity
Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests
Secularism vs. Islam:
Islamic state vs. Secular state
Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism
Islamic education vs. Secular education
Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics
Islamic history vs. Secular history
Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism
Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism
Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests
Hard challenges (for me):
The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history
Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history
Islamic penal law is superior to Secular penal law
History in Islamic tradition is superior to History in the Western tradition
The origin of Common Law is primarily Islamic Law
Eastern Christianity is superior to Western Christianity
The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions
The zionist cause of Israel is culpable
Atheism is unattainable
Darwinian Evolution is more literature than science
Subsaharan Africa adopted civilization before White Europe (non-Mediterranean)
Nicholas Copernicus is a plagerist
Classical Physics is primarily an Islamic invention
The Arab race is the most influential race in history
Democracy is a terrible government system
Erdogan vs. any current European leader
The Islamic world will surpass the Western world by 2050
The Belt & Road project is good
China will surpass the Western world by 2040
The world order will go back to its pre-Western dominion by 2070
China has already surpassed the US
The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state
- I might think of more to add later... Lemme know if you'd like to chip in, I am open to new topics as well.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
DEBATE-DODGING TAKES off in MIDETERM CAMPAIGNS
The traditional candidate debate might be on its last legs.
The traditional candidate debate might be on its last legs.
A time-honored staple of political campaigns, the traditional candidate debate, appears to be on life support.
Republican candidates this year are increasingly ducking out of primary debates or demanding greater control over the terms than ever before, raising questions about the future of an institution that has long been a central part of American campaigns.
It isn’t just the traditional reluctance of front-runners to share a stage with their challengers that’s to blame. Instead, a confluence of factors is jeopardizing the once universally agreed notion that candidate debates are a valuable practice in elections.
The media — a traditional arbiter of many debates — is so reviled by Republican primary voters that campaigns now recognize there may be more to gain from criticizing the process than participating. There’s also been a surge in self-funding and celebrity candidates in 2022, whose inexperience at debating and fears of campaign-ending missteps may be leading them to dodge debates altogether. Then there’s the shadow of Donald Trump, whose complaints that debates are rigged is now the party line, with the Republican National Committee throwing the prospect of presidential debates in two years into question.
“The media will fight like cats and dogs, because it’s the last thing in a campaign environment they have any control over,” said Dave Carney, the Republican strategist who advises Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, whose campaign is suggesting he may not debate his Democratic opponent, Beto O’Rourke, in the fall. “But in 10 years, when debates don’t happen anymore, no one will notice, voters won’t notice or care.”
Debates, Carney said, are “crazy … It’s like having your candidates do pet tricks for the media, and I’m against them.”
So far this year, in more than a half-dozen Senate, House and governor’s races across the electoral map, Republican candidates have skipped primary debates, seemingly with few repercussions.
Former football star Herschel Walker, the front-runner in Georgia’s Republican Senate primary, has refused to debate his primary opponents. So has Jim Pillen, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Nebraska, and Mike DeWine, the incumbent governor of Ohio. In North Carolina, Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) ducked a Senate primary debate last month. Mehmet Oz, the TV personality-turned Pennsylvania Senate candidate, says he wants to debate Anthony Fauci — who isn’t running against him — but has skipped debating the Republicans who are. And in Nevada’s race for governor, Joe Lombardo, the Clark County sheriff, was a no-show at a debate among Republicans last month.
In Pennsylvania, four GOP campaigns for governor sent a joint letter to the media recently laying out the conditions under which they would participate. One of them was a no-brainer: No one who has endorsed or donated to one of the candidates on stage can serve as a moderator.
The other criteria, however, were more constraining on the media or any other entity that sought to host a debate. There could be no questions with answers shorter than 30 seconds. Moderators must be registered Republicans who live in the state, and must not have spoken negatively about any of the candidates on stage. Nor can the moderator work “for an organization that has maligned one of the candidates.”
Republicans like Walker have suggested they will debate in their general elections, if they advance. But in a midterm year in which Republicans are favored across the electoral map, many candidates may have little imperative to agree to a debate in the fall. Already, it’s clear they no longer consider it a requirement of a campaign.
“In general, most candidates do not feel they get a fair shake from the mainstream media,” said Saul Anuzis, a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party. “So, I think you put yourself at risk going up … against a Democrat in debates, depending on who the moderators are going to be.”
He said, “Just from a strategic perspective, there’s not a whole lot of reason to give your opponents an opportunity to attack you or make a mistake or set yourself up on an issue that may backfire against you … Why put yourself at risk for anything?”
In Nebraska, Pillen’s campaign said the only thing he was missing by declining a primary debate was “political theater.”
In the past, debate avoidance has come at the cost of bad publicity, and some debate skippers are getting a taste of that this year. Earlier this month, Dan Moulthrop, president of the board of the Ohio Debate Commission, penned an op-ed in The Columbus Dispatch blistering DeWine for his refusal to participate, under the headline, “It’s bad for democracy.”
A spokesperson for one of Walker’s opponents in Georgia, Gary Black, was quoted in the local news saying Walker “isn’t smart enough to debate anybody.” The Philadelphia Inquirer headlined its piece on a recent debate, “What we learned from a Pa. Republican Senate debate that Oz and [David] McCormick skipped,” while in Nebraska, Ryan Horn, a Republican media strategist, said Pillen was only hurting himself.
“He’s not sharing the stage with Edmund Burke. Winston Churchill’s not going to be up there,” Horn said. “We’re talking about [gubernatorial candidates] Charles Herbster and Theresa Thibodeau.”
In Minnesota, where five GOP candidates did debate, in December, Gregg Peppin, a Republican strategist in the state, said, “I would hope that we don’t get to a position where we can’t have spirited robust debates among candidates on the challenges that face our country. If we get to that point, we’ll have really lost something in our democracy.”
But even Republicans who lament the decline of debates as a tentpole of political campaigns can see the logic in some candidates passing on them — and the prospect that they will increasingly elect not to.
“If you’ve got $50 million in the pipeline to bomb your opponent back to the Stone Age, then why even put yourself out there, other than to have a very crafted message that is essentially manufactured in a PR factory,” said Carl Fogliani, a Republican strategist based in Pittsburgh, who added that voters should question the qualifications of any candidate who lacks “the courage to answer questions.”
Money and courage are only two of the factors working against debates as a lasting institution. There is also the kind of candidate that the GOP is increasingly fielding in the post-Trump era. Following the former president’s outsider example, other politically inexperienced millionaires or high-name-recognition individuals have crowded into races.
“There’s no upside to debate,” said Jason Shepherd, the chair of the Republican Party in Cobb County, Ga., “if you’re someone like Herschel Walker who is already the frontrunner … and has no experience debating.”
With the electorate as polarized as it is, the number of viewers a candidate could hope to persuade in a debate is vanishingly small. Meanwhile, for Republican base voters, skewering the media’s role in the process is a slam dunk, especially after Trump’s effective use of the media as his “fake news” foil. Today, just about 1 in 5 Republicans now say they trust the news media — a lower level of support than government, the scientific community, Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
Trump’s 2020 attacks on the Commission on Presidential Debates as a partisan outfit bent on undermining him also continue to color discussions surrounding debates. The Republican National Committee is moving forward with its threat to prohibit future presidential nominees from participating in commission-sponsored debates, pleasing Republicans who have long argued moderators are biased against them.
“Campaigns have come to the realization that no one watches debates, so the risk outweighs the reward,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country.
In the past, he said, “part of the reason you would debate is you were afraid of being shamed by the voters that public discourse, campaigning and governing requires public debate.” Now, Thomas said, “Voters are totally cool with you going on Facebook Live for 20 minutes and having a conversation with them about your policies and your agenda.”
Thomas added, “I’m just waiting for campaigns to finally come to the realization that lawn signs don’t work.”
Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
WILL THERE be PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES in 2024?
Republicans cast doubt on the prospect
David Jackson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The Republican Party took a step closer Thursday to eliminating presidential debates in the fall of 2024, voting to stop working with the foundation that has organized such debates since 1987.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates is biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates," said Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
The move underscores how former President Donald Trump reshaped and continues to reshape the GOP, with his complaints about debates in 2016 and 2020 laying the groundwork for the possible withdrawal of Republican candidates in the future.
McDaniel and other party members who voted unanimously to withdraw from cooperation with the commission said they want "freer and fairer debate platforms." But it is unclear who might organize a new set of debates and whether the Democrats and their presidential candidate would agree to a new sponsor.
The RNC is also requiring Republicans to state in writing that they will only participate in party-sanctioned debates.
The Republicans are responding in part to complaints by Trump, who protested microphone muting and other aspects of his two debates against President Joe Biden in 2020. Trump refused to participate in one scheduled debate because the commission decided to hold it virtually instead of in-person because of the COVID pandemic.
And before the series of debates in 2016, Trump said he would prefer to face Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton without moderators because they were apt to "rig" the set-up against him.
McDaniel said the party would continue to sanction debates among GOP candidates competing in party primaries. This decision applies only to general elections sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Democrats said Republicans are just looking for excuses to avoid a presidential debate.
Jaime Harrison, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement that "after years of having their toxic policies exposed on the national stage, the RNC has decided they would rather hide their ideas and candidates from voters."
In recent negotiations, Republicans said they wanted the first debates of 2024 to be held before the start of early voting periods. They also sought more say-so over the appointment of debate moderators, claiming past ones have been biased against Republicans.
The commission said it was set up in 1987 "to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States are a permanent part of the electoral process."
Prior to Thursday's vote, the Republicans have sought to discourage corporate contributions to the commission.
When the Republicans threatened to withdraw from the process in February, the Commission on Presidential Debates said its "plans for 2024 will be based on fairness, neutrality and a firm commitment to help the American public learn about the candidates and the issues."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Hey Dartians! Welcome to the sign-ups for the February DART Tournament. This Tournament will be hosted by Lunatic, who will handle all Tournament details and assist with whatever participants may need.
February DART Debate Tournament
Basic Debate rules:
4 rounds, 1st round acceptance, one-week voting period, 3-day argument time
This tournament will be for the first 8 people that sign up.
However, if 8 people have signed up already, please express your interest anyway, and if enough people are interested we can increase the participant number to 16 and/or start an additional tournament to run alongside this one.
This tournament will not have any topic restrictions. A list of suggested topics may be supplied, but debaters can choose whatever topic they agree on. However, once the Tournament challenge period begins, debaters will have a limited time to begin their debate. If time expires, the Tournament host will choose a random topic for them.
This is a basic vanilla tournament, and mostly as a gauge of interest and proof of concept. I intend to utilize other ideas in future tournaments, but wanted this one to be as basic as possible.
I'm looking forward to seeing an entertaining tournament. Good luck to all participants.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Trump had his faults (stupidly interrupting, when he should have just let Biden dig his own grave as well as not giving a straight answer on condemning racists), but I personally think Biden couldn't have done any worse.
1. He openly endorsed the Green New Deal, universally recognized as the stupidest idea anyone has ever presented in American politics.
2. He made no condemnation of the riots and domestic terrorism plaguing America.
3. His COVID argument literally consists of "This international plague is somehow Trump's fault."
4. His economic argument is "you killed the economy" but at the same time "we need to close the country"
5. Weirdly enough, Biden hurled more insults at Trump than vice versa. This was the time he was supposed to be the grown up. Instead, they both looked childish.
There's so much more....
Really, I don't think the Democrats understand how absolutely disconnected they are from the American voter. It's like they're trying their hardest to be as radical left as possible. It's baffling to me.
Even if you agree with him on these issues, you have to admit, it is political suicide.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm curious to hear which debates required you all to do the most research, the most thinking, revision, etc... Please feel free to upload a link to the debate if you can and if you'd like!
For me, the debate I put the most effort into was a prepared resolution for two different rounds of a debate tournament. It was something like "THBT The Chinese System is Better Equipped to Face the Challenges of the Future Than the American System", and a few weeks to prepare arguments for pro and con. So naturally, I made 35 pages worth of research and arguments, researched statistics, read articles, made my own datasets, wrote out a more in depth opinion on individualism and collectivism than I have ever read in my entire life, and it paid off.
Me and my debate partner would've went to the provincials from that tournament, but we got screwed over by a judge in the 3rd round (there were only 4 rounds) and he absolutely tanked our score. I'm still proud of how much effort I put into it, though!
Me and my debate partner would've went to the provincials from that tournament, but we got screwed over by a judge in the 3rd round (there were only 4 rounds) and he absolutely tanked our score. I'm still proud of how much effort I put into it, though!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
- To the dude named @BrotherDThomas who keeps harassing me with his poke-&-run tactics, the type of dude that runs away from debate, yet on his way out he turns & screams "you runaway" to save face & what's left of his dignity. In the spirit of fun, this is an open challenge to the Brother (the TRUE CHRISTIAN was it?) regarding the topic of Islam. He is to pick a topic of contention he wishes to argue, if I disagree we shall thus set up a debate with the appropriate rules & resolution.
Good luck to you Brother.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
We have a tie and Disc has suggested a dual topic. We have two winning topics:
THUMB WAR [1]-
- PRO: INDIVIDUALISM is ETHICALLY SUPERIOR to COLLECTIVISM
- UNCONVENTIONAL DEBATE FORMATS SUCH as THAT in THIS THREAD SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED
username has earned 1pt!
Discipulus_Didicit has earned 1pt!
Submit the most popular single-post argument affirming either winning topic
- earn three points
- one post only per topic per round per DARTer
- no commentary or critique or campaigning, please- just arguments and likes
- popularity is decided by number of likes
- we can like as much or as little as we want
- we don't have to argue to vote
- we don't have to vote to argue
- I won't submit any arguments but I may use likes to break a tie
- Contestants can join at any point in the contest
- Sincere and friendly participation is requested
- If we do more than one of these, all points earned will be cumulative and perpetual in radiant glory
PERPETUAL and CUMULATIVE RADIANT GLORY POINTS COUNTER:
username:1
Discipulus_Didicit:1
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
I think we should all play a casual, freewheeling contest of arguments, decided by number of likes. The structure of this contest is simple.
IN this FORUM TOPIC
- Submit the most popular topic for one round of arguments
- earn one point
- topics can be on any subject except that this our DART website, its content and membership are entirely off the table
- more than one topic may be suggested by any DARTer but each topic should be posted separately for the purpose of distinguishing number of likes
IN a SECOND FORUM TOPIC
- Submit the most popular single-post argument affirming the winning topic
- earn three points
- one post only per round per DARTer
- no commentary or critique or campaigning- just arguments and likes
IN a THIRD FORUM TOPIC
- Submit the most popular single post counter-argument refuting the winning affirmative argument
- earn two points
- any contestant that wins both PRO and CON arguments for the same round earns ten points
- one post only per round per DARTer
- no commentary or critique or campaigning- just arguments and likes
- popularity is decided by number of likes
- we can like as much or as little as we want
- we don't have to argue to vote
- we don't have to vote to argue
- I won't submit any arguments but I may use likes to break a tie
- Contestants can join at any point in the contest
- Sincere and friendly participation is requested
- If we do more than one of these, all points earned will be cumulative and perpetual in radiant glory
So, for today, we just want topics
IN this FORUM TOPIC
- Submit the most popular topic for one round of arguments
- earn one point
- topics can be on any subject except that this our DART website, its content and membership are entirely off the table
- more than one topic may be suggested by any DARTer but each topic should be posted separately for the purpose of distinguishing number of likes
Time for submissions will be evaluated according to level of participation. If nobody wants to play that's also fine... just thought we might try something new
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Hi folks, round 2 of live practice debating is here!
This time, I'm wanting to do a minimal approach where both sides come to the table with only a constructive, and no other prep! This will force us to think of rebuttals on our feet, which I'm horrible at.
I'm thinking of doing a simple Public Forum 2 team style debate as follows:
Team A Speaker 1: Constructive (4 mins)
Team B Speaker 1: Constructive (4 mins)
Crossfire between both first speakers (2 mins)
Team A Speaker 2: Rebuttal (4 mins)
Team B Speaker 2: Rebuttal (4 mins)
Crossfire between both second speakers (2 mins)
Team A Speaker 1: Summary (3 mins)
Team B Speaker 1: Summary (3 mins)
Grand crossfire between all speakers (3 mins)
Team A Speaker 2: Final Focus (2 mins)
Team B Speaker 2: Final Focus (2 mins)
I'm open to all topic suggestions. If you want to participate let me know, we need at least 4 people.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Greetings, everyone!
I am pleased to announce that blamonkey and I will be hosting a second live debate tonight at 10 PM est. The topic is Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation
Join us here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhC3wTBRtU8
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Greetings everyone,
I will be doing a live LD tonight with blamonkeyon the topic Resolved: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel
I will be affirming tthe resolution while blamonkey will be negating!
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmHyPtBH-Zk
EDIT: Debate starts at 10 PM
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
He just keeps getting sniped for forfeits. Should he be suspended from debating?
Noob-sniping - the act of an experienced or established user deliberately taking on debates with new (often inexperienced users) to inflate their own win/loss record
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People