KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 22:45:35 GMT -5
Stephen, For awhile now you've been saying you'd like to participate in a moderated debate on the subject of government. You said I wouldn't want to participate in such a debate, but that is not true. I would in fact like that very much. I have in the past participated in the Battle Royale on Theologyonline as you may or may not remember. As you know TOL is an extremely popular and well-trafficked website. For comparison, my last Battle Royale was only 4 rounds long, but it has currently garnered over 10,000 views. The ensuing "Battle Talk" thread had 76,000 views and over 3,800 replies. I say this to say that having an opportunity to debate in a Battle Royale on that site is an honor. Only a few have gotten to do it. So I had a conversation tonight with the owner of TOL, Knight, and he said he would be all for you and I taking our debate on government onto the grand stage of TOL's Battle Royale. I find the idea exciting and I think that you would be an excellent debate opponent. I think it would be interesting and we should jump on it. What say you?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 22:51:18 GMT -5
The format for the Battle Royale is a post by round format. For example one of us would post first then the other would respond, and so forth, for whatever # of rounds they decide to give us to debate the subject. I propose we have a debate on the subject of "Is all government inherently evil?" Or something of the like. Again, are you willing to put your views of government to the ultimate test and scrutiny as you have said? Just so you know the only ones participating in the actual debate would be you and I. There would be a moderator but they would only state the rules ahead of time and then let each of us know our time to respond after each round. They normally do set up a separate "Battle Talk" thread for all of the members of the site to get on and debate the Battle Royale and the posts we would be making. it's a lot of fun, and I think that you and I would have a very interesting debate.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 22:54:17 GMT -5
Here are the stated rules for Battle Royales:
The details: Once a topic has been chosen (by the ringmaster or moderator) The moderator will choose one of the combatants to post his opening argument (all posts must follow existing TOL guidelines regarding length, language etc.). Then the next combatant will make his opening argument via a post. After that each combatant will take turns responding to each others posts until all rounds in the battle are complete. The length of the battle (maximum amount of posts will be determined by the ringmaster or moderator - see rule addition #2). The maximum amount of posts (rounds) in a battle will include each combatants opening and concluding argument posts. NO combatant will be allowed to post TWO posts in a row, it's POINT vs. COUNTER POINT - (basically post and then wait for a response and then respond etc.) Therefore the combatant who is chosen to post first will get the benefit of making his argument first, but the combatant who posts second will get the benefit of having the last word.(The total number of posts may be higher based on moderator posts which of course will not be included in the round or post count). The only exception will be if posts are disqualified due to editing (more on that below) or the post is deleted because it was past the post deadline. Therefore a combatant may have less than the maximum amount of posts in the debate if these situations occur.
BATTLE TALK For each Battle Royale I will also open up another thread so everyone else can discuss the debate in progress. There will also be a poll for you to vote on who you think is winning the debate (you may want to reserve your vote until the debate has evolved somewhat as you will only get one vote).
TIME LIMIT Each combatant has 48 hours to make his response, after the last response has been made or directly after the moderator has issued the "Let's get in on" command to start the battle.
EXAMPLE: So, let's say a combatant makes a post and his post is clocked in at: "07-06-2002 05:00 PM" the other combatant has 48 hours from that time to post his follow-up or response, after that post has been made the other combatant has 48 hours from the time of the last response and so on. YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE 48 hours to make a response, you might only take three minutes! But you cannot take MORE than 48 hours.
If, a combatant takes more than 48 hours to make his response his turn will be skipped - and his post will be deleted if he tries to sneak the post in after the time limit has expired.
The moderator will let the combatants know if a time limit has been exceeded and the other combatant will then have 48 hours to make a new point or post. And therefore that combatant will have the luxury of having two posts in a row, which is normally illegal!
EXCEPTIONS If, for a some reason you know you cannot make the time limit for whatever reason you can ask the moderator if he/she will extend the deadline for another 48 hours. If you have a compelling reason for the 48 hour deadline to be extended the moderator will inform the combatants of the extended time limit. If the extended time limit is exceeded the combatants turn will be skipped.
If the moderator does not feel your reason for extending the time limit is compelling enough he/she will inform you and you either will have to rush your response or skip your turn. Too bad!
AD HOMINEM ATTACKS Ad hominem attacks will most certainly be permitted as long as no forums rules are broken i.e.; foul language, blatant blasphemy etc.
(I would hope my combatant would try such a tactic as it might easily back fire!)
NO POSTS CAN BE EDITED Once a response has been made each combatant will have exactly 2 minutes to make any edits to their post. After that the "last edited by...." message will be posted on the post and the moderator will delete the post and the combatants turn will be forfeited. IS THIS RULE CLEAR? This rule will be strictly enforced and will have ZERO exceptions!
Basically make sure you are ready to post your response when you post it because we do not want combatants editing their posts after they have been posted.
QUOTING YOUR OPPONENT Please do not quote your opponents entire post in each of your responses. If you wish to quote parts of his posts in your response that is fine and even encouraged.
SUMMARIZE YOUR QUESTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR RESPONSE In a post many questions get posed, some serious, some rhetorical. If you have a question you want you opponent to answer make sure to ask in it in a plain and clear way at the bottom of your response i.e,: "Here are my questions for you... 1. bla bla bla? 2. bla bla bla etc.
RULE ABOUT RULES Battle Royale is young and new therefore the rules may change. I will do my best to make everyone aware of the rule changes and or additions.
------------------- RULE ADDITION #1 How will the moderator determine which combatant to go first? The moderator of the battle will literally flip a coin! Trust me this is as fun for the moderators as it is you, so I give you my word that the moderators will select the order of the debate based on a REAL flip of the coin.
RULE ADDITION #2 Length of the Battle. Not all Battles will be 20 rounds (20 posts from each combatant). The moderator will determine the length of the Battle AFTER the topic has been selected. That way if a topic is selected that is on the lighter side it can be given a shorter round limit or if a very HEAVY topic is selected the moderator can select a longer battle.
RULE ADDITION #3 The official name of these events shall be "Battle Royale" and not Battle Royal as was first stated. (my bad!)
RULE ADDITION #4 Quoting other sources. If you choose to quote another author or source you must recognize that source clearly in your post. If you use a external source and fail to recognize such source you will be subject to verbal abuse .
Furthermore.... let's keep in mind that the "BATTLE ROYALE" is a debate between participants at TheologyOnLine, NOT a debate between external authors, or theologians so let's attempt to use external sources sparingly. The obvious exception might be The Bible (Gods true word), due to the fact that many theology debates will be centered around the Bible in the first place.
RULE ADDITION #5 Minimum and maximum battle length. Battle Royales can range from 5 rounds (minimum) to 30 rounds (maximum).
RULE ADDITION #6 All rules already in existence for TheologyOnLine also apply to the Battles. Please refer to the TOL Commandments if you have questions.
RULE ADDITION #7 Do not attempt to make your entire argument in your FIRST post! Please keep the post length to no longer than 6 short to medium sized paragraphs. These debates should be POINT vs. COUNTER POINT style... in other words make a point and then let the other combatant respond and make his point, don't restate your original argument over and over for the length of the battle. A good example of post lengths can be found in Battle Royale II both Knight AND Zakath did good job of keeping their posts to reasonable lengths.
RULE ADDITION #8 - the copyrights! By agreeing to participate in a Battle Royale you also agree to allow your Battle to be reprinted or reused in full or in part by TheologyOnLine and it's various entities. In short... Battle Royales belong to TheologyOnLine and can be reprinted only with prior approval from TheologyOnLine.
RULE ADDITION #9 Any participant may attach images to their posts if they choose. However, since only subscribers can attach images to posts it is therefore beneficial to be a TOL subscriber. A regular registered TOL member does not have the ability to post image attachments to their posts and can therefore be at a possible disadvantage. To this we say............ SUBSCRIBE!!!
Please use this thread to ask questions about Battle Royale Rules. Thank you.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:00:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 26, 2010 23:13:27 GMT -5
are you willing to put your views of government to the ultimate test and scrutiny as you have said? I believe you mean... "Are you willing to put your views of government to what I consider the ultimate test and scrutiny in the forum and arena of my choosing." The fact that you run like a jackrabbit from anything resembling standard debate rules here and enthusiastically endorse anything on TL is suspicious to say the least. I'll look at your suggestion over the weekend, but the truth is that you're a month too late. You've had a hundred chances and resisted every one.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:20:12 GMT -5
are you willing to put your views of government to the ultimate test and scrutiny as you have said? I believe you mean... "Are you willing to put your views of government to what I consider the ultimate test and scrutiny in the forum and arena of my choosing." The fact that you run like a jackrabbit from anything resembling standard debate rules here and enthusiastically endorse anything on TL is suspicious to say the least. I'll look at your suggestion over the weekend, but the truth is that you're a month too late. You've had a hundred chances and resisted every one. Are you serious? I have been here responding time after time after time and trying to discuss the issues with you. You want a debate but you want to moderate it, but then you fall on your own rules throughout the debate thread you initiated. I have been tied up with school, but it's not true to say I've "run like a jackrabbit" that's insane, I've responded to you and in depth. You should be ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 26, 2010 23:22:09 GMT -5
You have, indeed, refused time and time again to abide by any set of commonly accepted debate rules. Its ironic that you suggest them now... if TL even goes by them.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:23:39 GMT -5
I give you substantial answers from Scriptures and you respond with snide remarks that don't even reflect a position that I hold. And I'm running like a jackrabbit? That's just so uncouth.
I will say again, I accept your offer of debate and we have a great forum to debate it on. I was busy when you set up your "Fair debate" thread but yet I attempted to respond to you on it time and again. But you set the rules and moderated that thread. That's not how a moderated debate works. TOL is a neutral site to this topic and I thought it would be a great idea. There are plenty of Libertarians who post on there regularly and even one who ran for office on a Libertarian ticket. That you find it "Suspicious" is telling.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:24:29 GMT -5
You have, indeed, refused time and time again to abide by any set of commonly accepted debate rules. Its ironic that you suggest them now... if TL even goes by them. Please quote where I said I refused to abide by commonly accepted date rules or apologize for bearing false witness against a brother.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 26, 2010 23:28:48 GMT -5
you set the rules and moderated that thread. That statement is false. I did not write either set of suggested debate rules. The thread was unmoderated, unaltered and unchanged and remains so today. I offered you administrative status over the thread to moderate as you please. You're a month too late to start claiming that you've not had a chance at fair debate. You did, and you turned it down repeatedly.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:30:17 GMT -5
That's just insane I've been here trying to discuss these issues with you when I have plenty of other things I could be doing. I saw you nowhere challenge me to a formal debate on the issue. You closed the original discussion thread and set up your own debate thread with you as moderator and going by your rules. That's not a moderated debate format.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:31:16 GMT -5
you set the rules and moderated that thread. That statement is false. You're a month too late to start claiming that you've not had a chance at fair debate. You did, and you turned it down repeatedly. Please provide the post and the link where I turned it down even once.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:31:38 GMT -5
If I did it repeatedly it should be easy enough.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:32:43 GMT -5
Also while you are at it please provide the formal challenge you issued me personally a "month" ago.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:42:04 GMT -5
My intention of offering this was nothing but pure and honorable and based on your own statements of wanting to have a moderator. Again I've been highly tied up with the accelerated accounting course I'm taking, something I've repeatedly stated here time and time again.
And yet I've spent hours upon hours trying to discuss these issues with you. And anyone could see that is true whether they agree with my positions or not.
|
|