Lietuva and Latvija: we rule! International project(s)

Alatar, what beer?! Only Sprite is allowed there

No actually what Starlin was trying to say was that we could have Khazad dum for the headquarters of our (lithuanian) team, and we would make it restricted only to the team members (though I don't see a point in that - our opponents, latvians, won't understand much anyway). We will have a whole new section for the debates and other international affairs anyway.

about the restrictions mind if one person shall come there and without any ceremonies...That's bul...it,what those elves say..join Clan of Orcs and thou shalt knowest the true answer

I'm gonna turn to lithuanian here.
um, Alatarai, niekas neateis ir nepradės ten nieko daryti, nes sakydama, kad bus "restricted", turiu omenyje, kad bus apdaryta vartotojų grupė, ir tik jos nariai galės rašyti žinutes ir galbūt iš vis matyti, kas ten viduje... Štai šitaip.
o jeigu turi omenyje debatų giją, kurioje vyks "renginys", tai bet kokie ne debatiniai postai (norėjau pasakyti žinutės) bus negailestingai trinami. Toks Starlin žodis

Elfhild rašė:tai bet kokie ne debatiniai postai (norėjau pasakyti žinutės) bus negailestingai trinami. Toks Starlin žodis

amen And please,stick this warning to the wall 😉

Hey there, Lithuanians! I am the debater from the Plaza that Elfhild has mentioned before. I will be happy to help you!

Nulukkizdin, if you need any help when convincing Elk to help us, call me

Lietuvos debatuotojai: atrakinta senoji geroji (?) kategorija Kazad-dūmas, ir šįkart ji pritaikyta mūsų reikmėms. Visas tas senas flūdas lieka, tegu. Mum netrukdys, o dvarfai turbūt nepasiges Sukūriau naują vartotojų grupę, slaptą, jos moderatorė esu aš, į ją įtraukiau visus debatuotojus. Jeigu kas nors dar norės prisijungti, tegu tik parašo čia arba man per AŽ. Tik šios grupės nariai gali skaityti ir rašyti minėtoje kategorijoje. Kiti ją tik mato, bet skaityti negali. Kol kas dar nėra ką ten aptarinėti, nes vis tiek reikia susitarti dėl taisyklių ir kt. Bet paskui galėsim pasidaryti bandomuosius pasitreniravimus ar kažką panašaus (palieku šitą klausimą mūsų ekspertėms ), na, o galiausiai, žinoma, tarsimės dėl strategijos per debatus.

Elfhild rašė:<...>bus apdaryta vartotojų grupė <...>

Gerai, žinau, kad kabinėjuosi prie žodžių, bet ši frazė nuskambėjo labai jau... keistokai...

Anyway - I am for the three week limit (Starlin, thanks for noting the book fair; I'll probably have to skip some lessons, because it's a must-visit). We are, after all, mostly newbies to this sort of debates and the least thing I wish to do is to go debating unprepared.

Oh, and... Mae govannen, YaWorm! May you find our humble site a welcoming place

"Kiti ją tik mato, bet skaityti negali." - Taip kaip tie debatai bus išpopuliarinti tai visuomenės daliai, kuri, kaip pvz. aš, plazą matė dukart gyvenime, nes mano, kad angliškai jau vis tiek nieko naujo pasauliui nepasakysi, o perskaityti, ką kiti ta kalba sakė, jau nebeįmanoma dėl gausos, ir kaip prisidės prie jos švietimo? Ar taip norima išvengti kokio nors pasakinėjimo (jei ten toks ką nors reiškia?)

(Approximately: If no one else can read the category, it means no one without knowledge of debates shall ever acquire it, while reading this MB).

I have some comments regarding the rules
Regarding Rebuttals
I suggest we drop the idea of OutOfPost Rebuttals completely,
Yes, some real life debates have the "crossquestioning" - part, where member of one team asks questions to member of other team who just spoke- however this part usually has very short time limits - and such a quick exchange of thoughts is difficult to introduce in post-style debating - the whole point of cross-questioning is to display how quickly you can grasp the question and react. If one is given 48 hours to prepare the answer, it is quite pointless.

Also - OutOfPost Rebuttals which can be said at any moment of the debate kinda make pointless the main post word limit - sole purpose of what is to force team to strategically plan it's tactics - how much space leave to main arguments, how much to rebutting.

You can't only post your arguments, completly ignoring the arguments and rebuttals of the opposing team - that would be OK if you were answering a lesson to a teacher, but it is not really a debate.
You can't have your whole case soncisting only of rebuttals either - some preparation and arguments must be present.
Therefore, both parts are equally important.

Generally, the order I propose looks like this:

Prop 1st post
Aim:Outlining Proposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as space allows.
Op 1st post
Aim: Outlining Opposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as possible. Rebutting Prop arguments through your own arguments is encouraged. Simply poiting to mistakes or disconsequences in Prop arguments is not permitted.
(The first post of both teams might have slightly larger word limit. E.g. - if the base word limit is 1000 wordst, this might have 1500, or, accordingly - 2000 and 3000 if 2000 is decided as base word limit)
Prop 2nd, Op2nd (followed by Prop 3rd, Op 3rd in case of 4v4)
Aims:Rebutting opponent team's rebuttals. Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments. Order of importance as said, Introducing radically new arguments at this points is discouraged, as it displays either some loopholes in team's preparation and strategy or simply lack of debating culture. It might result in a point penalty in category "team unity")
Prop last full post, Op last full post
Aims: Rebutting opponent's rebuttals. Rebutting opposing team's arguments. Backing up previously outlined arguments.Introducing new sub-arguments might be possible if it fits under one of the previous categories. Otherwise introduction of completely new arguments should not be permitted at this point and should result in point penalty for both "team unity" and "structure".
Prop remarque, Op remarque
(Forgive my english - I am transliterating the latvian term since my dictionary provides no accurate translation)
Aim: Enforce team's arguments through rebutting the last/most important opponent's rebuttals. (However, this is not the place to rebut opponents arguments)
This should have noticably shorter word limit - 500 words at most. By default - this is done by team captain, however any of team members who posted in the discussion may be designated to write this post. Changing an author of this post will not grant team any extra time - however a team may decide not to post it's remarque, if it feels it unneccessary, Generally, this is quite similar to out of post rebuttal - but it has its word limits, and each team has only one such option - thus putting both teams on equal ground.

There should be no limit on how many opponents arguments can be rebutted at each post - since we don't really have a limit on how many arguments opponents might have. However, no out of post rebuttals (other, then the last remarque) should be allowed at the debate topic at all.

Judgement
Every post (not remarques) is rated in the following categories, 5 point scale (5 - outstanding, 4 -very good, 3-ok, 2-somewhat lacking 1-poor 0-nonexistant)

• *Creativity
  *Staying on topic
  *Team spirit/team unity (someone already gave a nice description, I only support it)
  *Organisation (how easy it is to follow the author's thought)
  *Choice of arguments and rebuttal points.

Plus, each team is rated in the following categories:

• *Overall strategy (how well posts were organized to allocage enough space for arguments and rebuttals. How well the chances to rebut opponents arguments and rebuttals were used)
  *Overall choice of arguments and rebuttal points.

This all gives 85 points for 3v3 debate or 110 points for 4v4 debate.

Very good, Nimue! You have my support in what you said! 😉

However, there is one thing i wanted to clarify.. What about topics? My suggestion is that these are judges who decide it.. what do you think?

But apart of rules i wanted to ask about the place of first debate.. I'm absolutely sure that as I was the author of all this idea, the opening debate should happen in Latvian forum.. Hehe.. What say you?

Nulu: I must have forgotten (again :siena:) to turn the guest feature off... This will not happen again

Indraja: toje kategorijoje vyks komandos pasitarimai, t.y. tarsimės, kaip šturmuoti latvius. O patys debatai vyks čia, taigi juos galės matyti visa visuomenė. O pasitarimų latviam tikrai nebūtina žiūrėt. Lietuviam, sutinku, gal kas ir norės iš pašalinių, tai priimsim į grupę tuomet... Šiaip ten bus "treniruotės" ir argumentų tikrinimai.

Nimue, actually I disagree with you almost completely (that's just me, I like disagreeing )

First, I think we should stick to Plaza debating rules anyway, even if we want to change something and make them less strict, e.g. allow several points to be rebutted in a rebuttal or not use out-of-post rebuttals at all. I agree with such changes, but I don't agree with what you suggest about rebutting in almost every post.

Op 1st post
Aim: Outlining Opposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as possible. Rebutting Prop arguments...
Prop 2nd, Op2nd
Aims:Rebutting opponent team's rebuttals. Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments...
Prop remarque, Op remarque
Aim: Enforce team's arguments through rebutting the last/most important opponent's rebuttals.

It actually seems that you want rebutting everywhere. In a way, yes, that might be more interesting than just writing your own argument, BUT. But rebutting, especially when you have so much freedom, is much, much easier (obviously I'm talking only about written debates) than writing your own arguments and ideas and proofs. Anyone can pick someone else's statement, find some quotes and prove it wrong! If I understand right, what you want is some kind of dialogue. However, I do think that the kind of rebuttals they use at Plaza (seperated ones, at the end of your post, and at least twice shorter than the main argument) are enough for a dialogue and Plaza debates don't seem (at least to me) like answering your lesson to a teacher.
Actually, why I want to stick to Plaza rules without changing them too much is also because Plaza debate rules have been used for quite a long time (I don't know how long, but I believe that pretty long). If they use these rules, then they must work for debates and debating at Plaza is a fun activity which does atract quite a lot people.
So why don't we use what has been checked and what does work? I haven't tried real-life debating, but I believe that it is a bit different. So one can't just apply the same rules for written debates, because they might not work the way they do on real debates.
Therefore I don't agree with such big changes you suggest, especially if we're going to have a judge from Plaza.

To sum up briefly (oh my, how I love using linking words! ), my points are:
~ Rebutting is not the main part of a debate. Only by thoroughly writing his/her own long and interesting argument can a debater show how good s/he is (thus a judge can give him/her as many points as s/he deserves). In-post rebuttals are enough to create a "dialogue" so that the debate doesn't seem too boring. In-post rebuttals, such as they use at Plaza, do create interaction between members of opposing teams.
~ We should stick to Plaza rules, changing them a bit if we want, because they have been used for a long time and are really working.

Besides (can't stop writing), you can in a way rebut your opponent without really directly rebutting. You can choose such arguments and proofs of the topic for your post that these ideas you use would actually in a way oppose and rebut what your opponent is saying. you would still be proving your ideas, but at the same time it would be an answer to your opponent. I wouldn't call that rebutting, but it might seem more interesting that way. However, one also needs skills to do that, you don't just walk into the debate thread and post an interesting argument the first time you are ever debating...

I'm writing from my own experience at written debates. If I'm wrong, try to prove that I am, because otherwise I won't believe you people

EDIT: and I do think that the judge(s) should make their own judging system such as they think is more convenient to judge properly.
Also, I disagree with one more thing. If Prop starts and posts the fisrt argument, Opp should not be allowed to rebut in their first argument because if they do, than by the judging system they would get extra points for rebutting (or won't they?) and the whole judging system would be lopsided. In such case, poor Prop!

Elfhild - in my opinion, there is no need to stick to plaza rules obligatory.. I completely agree with Nimue about the way of rebutting! And you are maybe right saying that it is easier to rebute someone than make your own arguments, but that is why judges are here who will rate all this..

Why don't i stick to something what does work and want to invent something new? - you would probably ask... and i say - because it sounds much more interesting than rules in plaza.. and easier..

Nulukkizdin rašė:And you are maybe right saying that it is easier to rebute someone than make your own arguments, but that is why judges are here who will rate all this..

That is why you should write more of your own arguments than rebuttals. Then the judge can see how good your skills and logic are. If your whole post is rebutting and only a few paragraphs are your own arguments, than how can the judge judge you rightly? you're only rebutting, and rebutting is like pouring from empty to holey! (that's an idiom in Lithuanian, don't know if it works in english) No really, rebutting too much can be as boring as you think writing your own long arguments is.

Nulukkizdin rašė:Why don't i stick to something what does work and want to invent something new? - you would probably ask... and i say - because it sounds much more interesting than rules in plaza.. and easier..

First, it is not easier (at least for me). What Nimue wrote describing the purposes of each post is actually too many restrictions. if you stick to that, you can't invent anything that would surprise your opponents. that's why it's not more interesting either (in my opinion).
Moreover, it might be interesting to experiment with different rules and different ways of debating, but imho one should be at least a little bit experienced with "boring" rules to do that. otherwise it might turn out not as you expected, and it might prove disastrous (all right, I'm a bit exaggerating on this point. it might, and it might not. I don't know.)

And I'm not saying we should absolutely stick to Plaza rules. i'm saying that we can change them as we like, but still keep the main things so that we can assure the debate will at least work

If anyone wants to hear my opinion (because I'm the least experienced enthusiast here), I agree both with Nimue and with Elfhild. Sorry, sis, but I think Nim is right on the more rebuttals. However, I do think that letting the Opp rebutt in the first post is not a good idea. I would really like to have a clearer structure, the main features of which would be:
~ two clear opening posts, team mission statements, basic points (one post for Prop, other for Op)
~ two clear closing posts, in which: the teams reinforce their intial statements or those which proved to be the weakest? I suggest there should be something more like to a conclusion, not the "I'm giving all my last force to rebutt my opponent". It's more about reinforcing your own ideas.

What happens in between is much like what Nimue said. And I'd like to have rebuttals more clearly separated from the main argument. Incorporating them in your 'speech' would be too much of a chaos.

EDIT:

Lietuviai, mūsų debatų komanda skamba taip: Lietuvos debatų komanda, sutrumpintai LDK. Gali būti ir Lietuvos tolkinistinių debatų komanda, sutrumpintai LTDK (arba Lietuvos tikrai didelė kunigaikštystė).

English: "Lietuvos debatų komanda" - "Lithuanian debating team" can be abbreviated as LDK, which normally stand for Lietuvos didžioji kunigaikštystė, the name of Lithuania in the XIV century and later, "The Great Duchesy of Lithuania". If we add "Lithuanian tolkienian debates' team", LTDK, we can decipher it as The Really Great Duchesy of Lithuanian. It's just a small pun

You can choose such arguments and proofs of the topic for your post that these ideas you use would actually in a way oppose and rebut what your opponent is saying. you would still be proving your ideas, but at the same time it would be an answer to your opponent. I wouldn't call that rebutting, but it might seem more interesting that way.

Well you don't call it rebutting while I do - thus the disagreement is not that great really But it shows the problem which I would prefer to escape in debating - for new debaters (or even not so new, but in different setting with new set of rules and, new judges) it is very difficult to understand, what will be considered contrrargument, what will be proving your point through rebuttal, and what will be considered simply rebuttal (which is either forbidden or strictly limited). So maybe we should not burden ourselves with such limitations and just see how it goes?
Certainly the judged will be wise enough to see simple pointless rebuttal from strategically planned post.

If you do nothing to prove your point, showing no structure or strategy other than nitpicking the posts of your opponent - judge will clearly see it and you will be scored poorly. Sime as that - rebutting your opponents arguments in a way outlined above shows good debating skills.


What I was outlining in the "aims" after each post is no strict set of rules. They are merely forming guidelines for the debaters - something to base individual and team's strategies on. Other than -*it is a bad idea to forget mentioning an important argument in the opening post, and *there can be no rebuttals or new arguments in remarques (because your opponent can't really answer your remarque), there are no restrictions.

Yes, these outlines come from RL debates more or less - but I see no reason why similar structure would not work in post-based debates. Similar general structure should be followed in almost any speech or written paper which is supposed to be persuasive.

you can't invent anything that would surprise your opponents

You can't really surprise" your opponent in written debate, were opponent has 48 hours to prepare his answer.Period.

Ok, you can do it to some extent - but keeping one of your team's main arguments secret until the last post means stealing the opposing team a chance to prepare something to counter this. Of course, if you know that this argument is weak and given enough time your opponents would understand this - yes, then it is a nice strategy. But it is a dirty one.

Surprise your opponent brilliantly showing that his wise bend to your argument is just a game of words and illogical constructions, not worth paying attention to, surprise your opponent by your extensive knowledge of Tolkien-Lore, surprise them unexpectedly countering their arguments, before they have even had the chance to pronounce them - but don't do it by keeping your arguments to yourself.

Starlin:
You probably explained what I meant with "remarques" better than I did myself - yup, they should be each teams final, closing posts, reinforcing their arguments. To do this it might be neccessary to prove opponent's rebuttals have been wrong - however it is not a place where to attack opponents arguments. Team already had 2 (or three in case of 4v4) posts to do this.
But generally - just like you said

About the rules first. I suggest that in our first debate we use Plaza rules (this way it will be easier for us and the judge maybe). The only thing, if you don't want, you may omit the IC (In Character) parts. I'd suggest to take Plaza Jr Debate rules, as they are easier to follow.

If anyone wants to read a good debate in Plaza (just for reference), here is the link http://www.lotrplaza.com/archive3/displ ... osition=13 .

And one last thing. I've talked to Elk (Turin or whatever else nickname he has at the moment ) about our debate and he agrees to be a judge. I gave him a link to this thread, so he can follow our discussion if he wishes.

Sorry, Nuluk, if I stepped on your toes here, but it was a chance and I didn't want to miss it

Ok, the "LDK" thing is fun
Ir vis tik, Starlin, o gal tegu Kazad-duma gali matyti visi, tik rašyti gali vien grupės nariai? gerai Indraja sako... Matymas, kas ten viduje vyksta, gali sudominti daugiau žmonių. O mūsų priešininkai vis tiek nesupras (na, tiesa, supras tai, kas angliškai), be to, nemanau, kad bus tokie nesąžiningi ir žiūrės.
Anyone wants to design a banner for L(T)DK? (pssst, Aiquen? gal neturi, ką veikti? )

EDIT: wow, three simuls! I'll comment Nimue's thoughts tomorrow...

Moderator edit: the discussion on the banner of the Lithuanian team has been moved to our headquarters. Aiquen is kindly asked to drop an eye on it from time to time and if she wants to post something, just PM me and we'll arrange it easily. ~Starly~

About the rules first. I suggest that in our first debate we use Plaza rules (this way it will be easier for us and the judge maybe). The only thing, if you don't want, you may omit the IC (In Character) parts. I'd suggest to take Plaza Jr Debate rules, as they are easier to follow.

It is easier for the judge from the plaza and for those who have experience debating there - which, I believe, most of us have not.

It is just that even after reading through those rules and paging through some of the debates, I have not gained clear understanding of plaza debating rules, therfore I thought that a version, collectively thought out by all of us together, might be something slightly easier to understand. I might be wrong there - forgive me then.

Of course, if everyone else agrees that it is better if we play by the current Plaza debating rules, I won't object.


And since you are talking about banners... just a small note - in case you might wish to display them in your signatures during debates, the rules of Kurbijkurne require the banner no more then 500px wide, 200px high, and no more then 50 000 px^2 alltogether (thus - it can't be 500x200, but it can be 200x200 or 500x100), ah yes - and it can't be larger then 40Kb either.
Of course you should pay attention to this only if you do plan on displaying this banner in your signatures

Nimue, you probably read the general IK rebate rules? I suggest you read Jr debate rules and some of the Jr debates. They're much easier to understand I think.

And no, we don't want to put the banner in our signatures. Only to display it as our roster at the beginning of the debate. So no worries

Still more comments tomorrow. I've already used my limit of words today (my fingers can't type forever, lol)