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

YaWorm - it's okey! Great to know that Elk agreed!

*remembers some well known discussions about Stone Giants and waits for Elk to appear..*

Actually, only two of us have had experience with Plaza debates, I guess, and both are from Lithuania. Wouldn't it be unfair for us to have two experienced girls while all Latvians struggle with those unfamiliar rules? Wouldn't it be better if they were "unfamiliar" to us all? I dunno, frankly speaking

My suggestion of the whole process (edited Nimue's proposal):

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.
Prop 2nd, Op2nd
Aims: Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments.
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 closing statement, Op closing statement
Aim: Enforce team's arguments through rebutting the last/most important opponent's rebuttals.

What do you think? That's basically what I've said before.

Oh, one more thing: ok, you'll be hosting us for the first debate But let's remember that we have different codes (here we use BBCode and some HTML), so we won't be able to check the coding for our posts when we are the visiting team. I will make a list of your codes for our team, I suggest you do the same for yours. It's not difficult, basically you use the capitals where we use non-capitals. But still, the posts will have to be thoroughly checked becaus no editing is permitted. Or maybe we could open some test-thread in each forum? We could just post our message, see if everything is okey, then edit it and erase he message so that another team doesn't see it. Just for checking. What do you think?

EDIT: The capital - noncapital thing is the same in our MB and in yours, I've just checked it: both capitals and noncapitals can be used. Sizes are slightly different, though.

Can anyone tell me exactly WHY do you think that new arguments should be allowed AFTER first post and AFTER your arguments have already been countered by your opponent?

For it seems to me that such an order would simply discourage any serious forethought because - "hey, it's ok, I can stick it in later!" Do you seriously want that kind of behaviour from your partners or opponents?

And more - if the one is smart enough, he/she actually does not NEED to introduce new arguments for one can almost always find some chain of reason to show that this new thought simply backs up one's argument in some original way and is NOT a new argument by itself.

So, what I am trying to say, is that it should be forbidden to make new arguments after first post for it will not hinder the wise and it will force people to seriously think before they say anything.

But then, we will end with captains posting all the arguments and the other two members of the team only rebutting.

Well, I think that backing up the same arguments throughout the whole debate would a bit... boring The way I imagine it, each poster should have one or two (but no more) arguments which they are proving. Before the debate starts, members of the team brainstorm on the topic and come up with several ideas, then they split them so that every starter has something new to demonstrate when his/her time to post comes. The first poster of the team may list out what the whole team will be talking about, shortly describe the ideas that are going to be presented (e.g. in the opening statement), however, not everything should be relvealed at the very first post. Just imagine 3 or even 4 posts with the same ideas in them, proving them all over again! Even if you're using different proofs, that doesn't change anything...
So I think we do need fresh ideas in each post. Not unless you want the 2nd and 3rd and maybe 4th posts to be only rebuttals

Oh well... Actually I think we're disagreeing about the rules quite much, we must do something or we'll never settle on something that everyone agrees about. What do you suggest? We can't go on like this forever

Starlin rašė:But then, we will end with captains posting all the arguments and the other two members of the team only rebutting.

And that is fundamentally flawed because...?

I fail to understan why it would be such a bad thing.

Do you seriously think that this would actually happen? Captains posting all the arguments and other members only rebutting? And what about backing up your team's arguments with new quotes, new reasoning? And what about a lenghty discussion within the team before announcing it's main arguments. And after all arguments are clear to all members of the team, ONE person (captain) should announce those arguments to the other team.

Well, that would be more of a discussion, but debating is not about a free discussion, it's about presenting your arguments in an organized way and letting the judge decide whichside presented their arguments better. Therefore the team has a week for preparations, as Elfhild said, they discuss within the team first, then they see what points they could bring up and plan their strategy. For example they could place their strongest point in their last post, when the opponent may not be expecting that. I suggest that within the 2nd and 3rd posts the posters could rebut up to 2 points and present 1 argument of their own.

Elfhild rašė:... then they split them so that every starter has something new to demonstrate when his/her time to post comes. ...

This is why you have ROLES within a team. Because, if everyone does the same thing, it is not a team, for they would be better off alone with noone disagreeing with them but the opponents.

Agronoms rašė:And what about backing up your team's arguments with new quotes, new reasoning?

Well, don't you think it would be boring? Besides, are you saying then that the first poster should not prove the arguments with some quotes? A post without quotes would look rather... weird...

And what about a lenghty discussion within the team before announcing it's main arguments. And after all arguments are clear to all members of the team, ONE person (captain) should announce those arguments to the other team.

I don't really understand what you mean. Announcing the other team what you are going to talk about throughout the debate? :shock: Isn't that just too spoily?

EDIT: all right, simuls again 😉
No, Agronoms, the team is very important! You don't understand what I mean. The team does work together, actually, if you haven't noticed, I am suggesting to have the debate the way they have in Plaza. And believe me, teams are so much of importance in plaza. you split ideas, but the ideas are produced by the team, then the team helps you find proofs if you need, and they read your post and comment it, and correct it, before you go ahead posting it... That's all teamwork!

That's exactly what's happenning, I mean, "a lengthy discussion within the team". I've written about that above. The team plans its strategy, and spreads its arguments within its 4 posts as they wish, in order to achieve the best result possible. The captain can introduce, for example, up to 3 points, but the other two only 1 new point PLUS they can rebutt. I think that would be quite fair.

Starlin said -

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.
Prop 2nd, Op2nd
Aims: Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments.
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 closing statement, Op closing statement
Aim: Enforce team's arguments through rebutting the last/most important opponent's rebuttals.

.. and i don't see why not to agree with her.. Let's stop this nonsense and start debating.. We MUST find a conclusion in this 'discussion'..

All right... I don't really agree with Starlin, but I'll keep that to myself because this discussion has gone too long already :shock:
Except one thing ( ). This:
Prop closing statement, Op closing statement
Aim: Enforce team's arguments through rebutting the last/most important opponent's rebuttals.
That sounds pretty much like non-main-post (or out-of-post) rebuttal. Why don't we just call it like that? otherwise there might be confusion. I don't know how about you, but I'm going to use the headings we use at plaza: opening statement, main argument, rebuttals, closing statement... So for me a "closing statement" has nothing to do with rebuttals. "Closing statement" is the same as "conclusion", however, if we're going to have rebutting in that, it's not really a conclusion.

Or actually, all the arguments provided by the whole team can be very well summarized in the last main post of the team. Why should there be an additional post for concluding?

Let's move on anyway. We still have a few things to decide. I'll put forth some questions so we can discuss them.
1. Word limit
2. The structure of a post
3. Deadlines
4. 3v3 or 4v4?
5. Judge

My comments here.
1. I suggest a 2000 words limit for any main post, and perhaps a 500 limit for the thing Starlin called a "closing statement" and I call an "out-of-post rebuttal located only at the end of the debate".
2. I really suggest that we have the rebuttals seperated from the main arguments so as to avoid chaos. That way rebutting will be easier to judge too.
Anyway, I suggest we have this structure, with headings marking the parts of the posts. the post looks much "cleaner" and more understandable that way. Here it is:
Opening statement (a paragraph where you open your speach and say what you are going to talk about)
Main argument (the biggest part of your post where all your arguments and proofs go)
Rebuttals (obviously, you rebut here; or rebuttals can atcually go before the main argument if you like it better that way)
Closing statement (or simply "Conclusion" - here you summarize what you said in your post)
3. 48 hours? Or is that too long?
4. How many latvians who want to participate are there? I supose we have enough lithuanians for a 4v4 debate, so I vote for that.
5. If Elk agrees to judge the debate, I suppose we ought to talk to him about all this rule business too. Well, it would be best if he dropped in here... it's just that it might be a bit of a problem him registering in a MB where everything is lithuanian

And last but not least, we need to have the rules written down clearly so we can have them in the first post of the debate.

Yep, I just copied Nimue's text, but I think that in the closing statement each team should summarize their points and arguments. Why not last post? Because, think of it, we have only 3 players, that would mean: opening statement, main post, last post with closing statement! I think that having opening statement, 2 main posts and closing statement is a good idea.

1. I suggest a 2000 words limit for any main post, and perhaps a 500 limit for the thing Starlin called a "closing statement" and I call an "out-of-post rebuttal located only at the end of the debate".

(we should decide if we rebutt or not in the closing statement! sorry for the confusion)

I agree with the limits.

Opening statement (a paragraph where you open your speach and say what you are going to talk about)
Main argument (the biggest part of your post where all your arguments and proofs go)
Rebuttals (obviously, you rebut here; or rebuttals can atcually go before the main argument if you like it better that way)
Closing statement (or simply "Conclusion" - here you summarize what you said in your post)

Agree. Though, could we call the last team-post then not "closing statement" but "final post" or something? Just to avoid confusion.

48 hours? Or is that too long?

If it's 3v3, it's not too long, but if it's 4v4, I'd say 36. Plus for subs, let's say, 8 hours. Will that do?

4. How many latvians who want to participate are there? I supose we have enough lithuanians for a 4v4 debate, so I vote for that.

This question should come first! Because some of the rules depend on it...

Well, it would be best if he dropped in here... it's just that it might be a bit of a problem him registering in a MB where everything is lithuanian

Register him and tell him how to change his password later. But I don't think that would be a problem: the estonian guy did register all by himself!

Just one more question -

Starlin rašė:The team plans its strategy, and spreads its arguments within its 4 posts as they wish, in order to achieve the best result possible.

is there any reason (other than simply acting nice) not to keep your main argument hidden as long as possible?

No, no, no! Why do you want to set the purposes of the posts so strictly? what on earth are you going to write for 2000 words in an "opening post" as you call it? or the "final post", just the same? Opening the debate and outlining what your team is going to talk about takes like a paragraph or two, NOT the whole post! besides, if you're "opening" in the first post, "arguing" in the 2nd or 3rd (in case of 4v4) and concluding in the last one, how do you imagine judging! the posts are not really of the the same kind so you can't apply the same judging system!
And, like, summarizing takes only a couple of paragraphs as well.

Look, you're making this all too complicated. I thought you wanted to change the plaza rules because you wanted simplier ones, but now you're making a REALLY complicated thing with all this.
The rules should be just the same for a 3v3 debate, a 4v4 one or even a 5v5 if we ever come to that. the simpliest way is, you have general rules: each team has four main posts (i'm talking about a 4v4 debate but it doesn't really matter, you only change the numbers) and general rules for them, such as word limits, rules for making arguments and rebuttals... And it is up to the team to make a strategy of outlining, summarizing and doing other kind of stuff. Let the teams make their own strategies! You can make short summaries of what your team has proved so far at the end of every post if the team decides that that way it will sound more convincing...

EDIT: this above was originally an answer to Starlin's post. simul again!

Agronoms, I don't think Starlin said that the teams should reveal their strategy... I think we all agree that team business (strategy and all that stuff) will be kept secret. You probably misunderstood something. Arguments are going to be kept secret before the time to post them comes.

I really suggest that we have the rebuttals seperated from the main arguments so as to avoid chaos. That way rebutting will be easier to judge too.

That is one of the things I seriously dislike in Plaza rules -it suggests rebutting should be derogated to simple nitpicking, instead of wisely choosing a nice counter arguments - which is what debate is all about in my opinion. But that's just my opinion.

As for the reason why main arguments shold be supplied in the first post, and only expanded later:
A debate is not a discussion. Agreed - and that is why the arguments are supplied first, and backed up later.
In a discussion each party drops in a next argument as soon as it comes in mind - they are not prepared beforehand.

Generally - in a debate (how I understand it) a party chooses some 3 or 4 best arguments and works on strategy about how to expand and defend them. Expanding and defending main arguments includes new subarguments, of course.

Now - what is the reason, why it should be allowed for a team to introduce a radically different way to prove their main statement late in the debate?
To make it more interesting? - that depends on how the posts are written not so much on when the arguments are introduced.

Or, the reason is, that your debating background simply requires a different approach - and thus you can't imagine how such a debate would look? That' s quite possible.

If that is the reason (and since you are saying these rules are more complicated - I guess that's so) - then ok, we might stick to plaza rules - just so everyone can understand them.


I am sorry for spelling in this post and - if something is hard to understand. I am slightly short of time, and it won't change in the next few days, so I just wanted to write my opinion here while I can.

As for the other questions to be decided - I generally agree.

Nimue rašė:As for the reason why main arguments shold be supplied in the first post, and only expanded later:
A debate is not a discussion. Agreed - and that is why the arguments are supplied first, and backed up later.
In a discussion each party drops in a next argument as soon as it comes in mind - they are not prepared beforehand.

No they don't. I mean, in a debate, if you let introduce new arguments in every main post, teams are prepared and they don't drop in something that just comes in mind. Even before the debate starts, they plan every argument and who is going to introduce which arguments in their post. Everything is planned beforehand.

But, actually, sorry, it is not my intention to have everything my way. And I don't want to have the last word, because the debate was not my idea originally, so it's not for me to decide... If I'm disagreeing much, don't pay attention to that - that's just the way I always behave

I suggest we move on. Someone should say the last word and put down the rules, the best version of them that we discussed here.

In a way, you both are saying the same thing: that the team outlines its plan in the first post (by the captain) and expands on some of them not only in the first, but in other posts as well. Not a big deal, I think, not a big disagreement.

I was just thinking about trying to put down everything we have discussed there into one comprehensible set of rules - "Version One", we may call it, then make amendments if necessary and let our judge get acquainted with them. BRB with the rules.

Yes, exactly. We should make the "Version #1" thing and then see how it looks. that would at least give this discussion some clarification, because apparantly some of the disagreements come from misunderstandings...

Obviously, it won't be me who will be putting down the rules

I don't know about the judgement. Any other points to be added to the rules in general? Comments?

***

Latvia vs. Lithuania debating championship: The Rules (Version 1)

Teams

Each country has a team. In the team they have an equal number of main debaters (starters) and an unlimited number of subs. Teams select their captain, who will write the opening post for the team.

Starting the Debate

1. The judge decides on the topic of the debate and announces it in the debate thread. The teams have one week for preparation.
2. After a week, the time counting starts and the proposition team (the hosting team) is expected to post their opening statement within time limit.

The Debate

1. No IC, therefore no ‘spectators’ allowed. All out-of-context posts should be deleted without warning.
2. No editing of posts allowed.
3. After the judge has posted the topic and before posting their first posts, the team captains should post their rosters.
4. The teams post Prop, Op, Prop, Op…
5. It is up to the teams how they organize their arguments, but there are certain rules to be sticked to:

Prop 1st post, Op 1st post
Aim: Outlining Proposing/Opposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as space allows. The Opposing team cannot rebutt the arguments put forward in the Proposing team’s first post.
Prop 2nd, Op2nd (also 3rd, 4th…)
Aims: Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments. Only two rebuttals allowed in one team’s post. Opponent’s rebuttals can be rebutted.
Prop closing statement, Op closing statement
(Preferably written by the team captain) Aim: Enforce team's arguments. It may be done by summarizing your arguments, by rebutting the last rebuttals of the opponent or in some other way, but no new rebuttals can be made.

6. Colour codes may be used by the team to organize their posts. In this case, the codes should be posted at the beginning of each post. This section is not included in the word count.
7. Rebuttals should be separated from the main arguments. The team may choose whether to include headings “Main argument”, “Closing statement” etc., but headings “Rebuttal #1”, “Rebuttal #2” are required for the purpose of separation.
8. Time limit for the post to appear in the thread is 48 hours. In case a sub is called (which should be done openly in the thread), another 8 hours are added to the time remaining on the clock. The judge is expected to inform the debaters about the date and time their post is due.
9. Word limit is 2000 words for each main post and 500 words for the Closing Statement, excluding colour codes and all the formatting codes, including Headings and quotes.

Judgment

Every post (except the closing statements) 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
*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
*Strength of the Closing Statement