Affirmative action

[xorbie]

Come on. You all know you want it. Also, now that group debates are up, and because this issue is argued about so often, we could even go 2v2. I think that would be pretty new/original/cool. So.. RED DAVE, contracycle, Loren, FustinJelux, any of you up for it.

[Evo]

I got your huckel berry, i'm going anti-aa if that's ok

[xorbie]

Well, I think the debate is pretty dead at this stage. If some pro affirmative action people were to come here, then perhaps something might happen.

[Evo]

are you pro-aa?

[xorbie]

No, which is precisely the problem.

[beyelzu]

where are all tose pro aa people there are tons of them around here. by the way xorbie, I would be glad to be your partner in on the anti side.

[beyelzu]

so who wants the pro aa side. xorbie wanted to have a formal debate on affirmative action, perhaps in 2 on 2 format, anyway, anyone interested check out formal debate challenges.

[xorbie]

See, that's the problem. The pro-aa side (RED DAVE, FustinJelux, contracycle maybe) all dissapeared. The old thread is sitting somewhere, totally unresolved. But if you do manage to get some interest in this, I would be glad to go anti.

[xorbie]

They mighty fury of our combined debating prowess has no doubt sent them scampering for the hills :D

[ju'iblex]

the words formal debate instantly make it a candidate, for you guessed it, Formal Debates Setup! adios ;)

[beyelzu]

the reason I put it in pd is so more people would see, I dont think everyone checks formal debate setups.

by the ju'iblex you interested in the pro side???

[Silent Dave]

Well then get the word out about us! :D


Dave

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'm merging this thread with the other AA thread. :)

Jason

[xorbie]

Argh. I would have thought interest in this debate would be higher....

[FustinJelux]

xorbie, I'll debate in favor of affirmative action. If the posts are really long my responses might take a day or two cause I'm busy with school, work, and extracurricular activities. How do formal debates work here? I've never done one.

[Colander of Truth]

I am pro affirmative action. I'd I'll participate in a debate. I'd like it to be pro vs con, rather than person vs person, with odd days for pro posts, and even days for con posts.

What say you all?

[xorbie]

I would agree to the following: Beyelzu and I will argue against while FustinJelux and Subi dura a rudibus will argue for.

My idea would be something like alternating sides argue, and then alternating people within each side. For example, I might give an opening statement and then Fustin would give one, and then Beyelzu will give one and then Subi. Each poster should in theory try to rebutt both of the other sides arguments, unless he feels his partner his given siffucient refuation.

This way we can also go every day and still have 3 days between posts.

What do you all feel we should do about statistics, citing oustide arguments and length of posts? I would argue for limited statistics (so we don't get bogged down going on tangents about the veracy of certian statistics and miss the forest for the trees), limited outside sources (same reason) and maybe 2000 or 3000 words per post.

What do you all think?

[FustinJelux]

Sounds fine to me.

[Colander of Truth]

Sounds good. I do think statistics and laws need to be cited.

[Colander of Truth]

Please change or vote to proceed.

(a) The topic of the debate. "Affirmative Action Pros and Cons."
(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue. "Beyelzu and xorbie will argue against while FustinJelux and Subi dura a rudibus will argue for."

(c) The scope of the debate. "The effects of Affirmative Action laws and policies in Amercian emplyment and educational settings."

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate). "8 rounds per participant."

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. "Turns, starting with Subi, then xorbie, then Fustin, then Beyelzu."

(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement). "no more than 5000 words."

(g) The maximum duration between statements. "Maximum duration to be 48 hours."

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed). "Quotes permitted with full credit and citation."

(i) The starting date of the debate. "Start Saturday 10/4/03."

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

"No other rules"

[FustinJelux]

Yeah.. kinda hard to make the case without statistics. I will use them but try to use only ones that are relevant to my case.

[xorbie]

It all sounds good, but I have two modifications.

Would it be possible to do a two part debate, switching halway from discussing affirmative action in schools and doing the rest of the debate discussing it in hiring/employment? I think this is good because (a) my sentiments on the two isses (and my arguments) are slightly different, and (b) this way neither issue gets lost.

Also, I would like to cap the statistics at maybe 2-4 per post or maybe cite 1 website or something. But I really don't want to go off reading huge essays by other people or wading through statistics that are hardly germane.

And where is Beyelzu *starting to feel scared and lonely*

:p

[Colander of Truth]

Revised per xorbie request (plus start date change until we have full acknowledgment of participants):

(a) The topic of the debate. "Affirmative Action Pros and Cons."

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue. "Beyelzu and xorbie will argue against while FustinJelux and Subi dura a rudibus will argue for."

(c) The scope of the debate. "The effects of Affirmative Action laws and policies in Amercian employment and educational settings."

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate). "4 rounds per participant for the first half being limited to educational settings, 4 rounds per participant for the second half being limited to employment settings.


(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. "Turns, starting with Subi, then xorbie, then Fustin, then Beyelzu."

(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement). "no more than 5000 words."

(g) The maximum duration between statements. "Maximum duration to be 48 hours."

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed). "Quotes permitted with full credit and citation."

(i) The starting date of the debate. "Start Monday 10/6/03."

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

"No other rules"

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

If I could offer a tip, I would recommend a 9th and final round to make concluding statements. Also, are you all sure that you can keep on the ball with a duration between posts of only 48 hours? If not, you're going to hear me or another mod say this alot between posts:


XXXXX,
Please note that the 2 day deadline (as agreed to in FDCS) has passed for your next statement. However, you're permitted a grace period, extending the deadline to XXXXX, October XXth.

Thank you for your consideration,

- Nightshade
FD Moderator


Otherwise, we just need to hear from Beyelzu and FustinJelux to okay the parameters to make it official. I'd recommend PM'ing Beyelzu to bring this thread to his (her?) attention again.

As for the peanut gallery thread, I think the debate subject fits a little better in PD vs. MF&P, so I'll put it there.

Jason

[xorbie]

I have already pmed Beyelzu. If I don't get a reply, I think I will try either UMoC or Loren to see if one of them wants to pick up the gauntlet.

Also, if we have the posts being up to 5,000 words, I think we should extent the period of time between posts. Although I probably won't ever reach 5,000 words, it certainly takes a while to type out a response. Perhaps we could limit the post to 3,000 words? Or extend the between-post time to 72 hours.

And yeah, I think we should wait till we actually have a 4th person before discussing begin date.

[FustinJelux]

I like the 72 hour idea

[xorbie]

How long should we give Beyelzu? I really don't want to wait too long, and then the aa thread in PD goes away, and then nobody else joins the debate, and then it dies away. That would be sad :(

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by xorbie
How long should we give Beyelzu? I really don't want to wait too long, and then the aa thread in PD goes away, and then nobody else joins the debate, and then it dies away. That would be sad :(

You could always have a standard one on one debate with either Fustin or Subi if Beyelzu doesn't show.

Jason

[xorbie]

Yeah, but I don't want to have to say to either one "sorry, too bad." Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.

[beyelzu]

I am here and ready to lay waste to all supporters of affirmative action.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by xorbie


And where is Beyelzu *starting to feel scared and lonely*

:p


dont feel lonely or scared I have arrived.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Okay, very good folks. Beyelzu, I assume you're okay with all the parameters suggested?

Subi, are you okay with the 3 day duration?

I think I'm going to use my moderator muscle and add an amendment --- that is, a 9th and final round to allow each participant to make a concluding summary statement. I just don't want to leave it hanging. It's like watching Raiders of the Losk Ark and getting up to leave the theatre just after Beloq and the Nazis get roasted, not following the aftermath. :p

As some of you may know, I'm rather ambivalent about allowing "tag team" formal debates like this, but Silent Dave differs with me, so I'll be a team player and cooperate. Hopefully my fears about debates like this will be unjustified.

If Subi or no one else has any further amendments, then I or Silent Dave will start a thread in FDD on Oct. 6th.

Jason

[Colander of Truth]

Revised

(a) The topic of the debate. "Affirmative Action Pros and Cons."

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue. "Beyelzu and xorbie will argue against while FustinJelux and Subi dura a rudibus will argue for."

(c) The scope of the debate. "The effects of Affirmative Action laws and policies in American employment and educational settings."

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate). "4 rounds per participant for the first half being limited to educational settings, 4 rounds per participant for the second half being limited to employment settings. One final closing statment per participant. Opening statments to be made with or within the first round of each of the two settings.


(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. "Turns, starting with Subi, then xorbie, then Fustin, then Beyelzu."

(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement). "no more than 3,000 words."

(g) The maximum duration between statements. "Maximum duration to be 72 hours."

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed). "Quotes permitted with full credit and citation."

(i) The starting date of the debate. "Start No later than Monday 10/6/03."

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

"No other rules"

[xorbie]

I agree, but I would just like to say that by affirmative action, I mean race based, as opposed to socioeconomic based. I will discuss precisely what I am against in my opening, but just want to get that much out there.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Alrighty then! Now that that's settled, I'll be closing this thread.

Silent Dave or I will set up the debate thread in Formal Debates & Discussions (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17) on Oct. 6th.

Jason