[IDEA]Debate club

[Female_alien]

The smoking one seems fine. So, who'll be the "judge"?

[Krum]

i think that Paul's the best for the job...and maybe we can even do more drastic teams like divide into houses and earn house points...

[Hermione Weasley]

I like that Idea Krum but the problem would be that if one house has alot more people in a team than another house,buit we could always talk to our houses and see who's interested and go from there

[Plep]

Another problem would be how to judge the discussions....i don't think there will be "winners"and 'losers".

Does anyone know how they do this in real debate clubs?

[Alice I]

When I was back in highschool I was involved in a debate (something political I don't remember) but the debate was ended when my side convinced more than half of the other side to change their stand on the issue.

Of course that would mean that the participants would need to debate the side they believe in.

I'm not sure this will work that way. What do you think?

[TDM]

well, i like Krum's idea for Paul being the judge. i mean, who better to pick who wins than the webmaster? but, as for picking sides, i say that someone, doesn't matter who, puts all the names into a hat, cup, etc, and draws out half for and half against. it seems like the fairest way to do this.

(BTW, i've never been to debate club, b/c my school doesn't have it. so i don't even know if this is how it works. but it would be fun.)

[fierce]

I like Krum's idea of Paul being judge too.

When I was in the high school debate team, we had three people on either side of the debate.

So, say we flipped a coin and the 'for' team won the coin toss. The first speaker for the 'for' team outlines the arguments the 'for' team will make, and elaborates on a couple of the major points. Then it's the first speaker for the 'against' team's turn. The first spearker for 'against' team does much the same as the first speaker of the 'for' team, but then also rebuts the 'for' teams first speaker's argument. The next speaker for the 'for' team then establishes more the points the first speaker of the 'for' team has made, and brings forth new points, and rebuts the points of the first speaker 'against'. The second 'against' speaker does much the same thing, and then the third speaker for the 'for' team rebuts the second speaker 'against's points, and summarises the arguments made by the 'for' team. the third speaker for the against does the same thing.

*whew!* I'm not saying that's the way it should be done, i was just letting you know that's the way it was done with all the schools of the inter-school debating in our diocese. It might be hard for the debate to be that formal, with people coming & going all the time...

[Female_alien]

In my school there was a debate about the homosexual law in Croatia. And both "groups" had 3 people. First one from the one group, than on fom the other one and so. And the last 2 people made a conclusion for their gruop. We, the audience, voted for the group we think had better arguments.

[fierce]

Oh yeah i forgot to say how the winning team is chosen!

There are three adjudicators who make notes and decide who's argument was the most convincing over all, and then give the individual speakers notes on their style and flaws etc.

[Plep]

Fierce, i agree with you about the discussion itself, but i don't know if really judging the speakers is wise...i like the idea of having a anonymous poll before and a poll after the discussion...the team that has convinced the most people to change to their side wins...

And for Paul being one of the judges...i like that idea...question is if Paul likes it too...

[Alice I]

Fierce, i agree with you about the discussion itself, but i don't know if really judging the speakers is wise...i like the idea of having a anonymous poll before and a poll after the discussion...the team that has convinced the most people to change to their side wins...

And for Paul being one of the judges...i like that idea...question is if Paul likes it too...

Very good idea Phelp, with polls everyone gets a say and no one's feelings get hurt.
Each participant takes his/her turn stating their argument then the forum as a whole votes.

So now all we need to do is get Paul in on this and choose up teams.

May I suggest a final roll call of all interested participants?

[Won Wheezy]

Can I be number 15 PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAASE?

[Paul]

I've never been to a debate club or any type of organised debate either but it all sounds intriguing and much more organised than I'd thought. I think Plep's suggestion of a polling system for deciding the winners like Plep suggested is probably the best way to go.

How about we create this as a new forum then, and make 4 Moderators - one from each House. We can maybe have a debate team for each House, and rotation system where one House debates with another House, and the two remaining houses cast private polls in their Common Rooms.

Then the next subject is chosen and a different combination of 2 Houses debate...and so on...

The main thing to decide would be what criteria the votes are made on. Debates I've seen on television seem to use what Plep mentioned - a poll before the discussion and another poll after the discussion...the team that has convinced the highest percentage of people to change to their side wins.

[Krum]

yeah, why not?I can take on all fo ya(actually, I don't have that big a mouth )

Roll call:
welll, i'm here, obviously

[Krum]

sorry for the double-post, but:
maybe it would be good to have some kind of points system-like house points-to decide who debates who-like a tournament