Big Sky Cairn

On behalf of your contributors here at Big Sky Cairn, I Cody hereby challenge a Montana blogger to an online debate of the Resolution:

Resolved: Architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice.

I will take the Negative (disproving the resolution or the case presented by the Affirmative). The debate will be hosted here - I’ll give whomever agrees a guest account to post with.

The debate will be structured with specific “speeches” that are governed by word-limits. Each”speech” will be posted as a stand-alone post, tagged as “Debate” and identified in the subject line.

Affirmative Constructive
3000 words max.
The Affirmative makes the case in support of the resolution.
The subject line should start with “1AC”

Negative Cross Examination of Affirmative
10 questions 400 words max
Response 600 words max
Posted as comments of the Aff Constructive, the Negative can ask up to 10 questions which the Affirmative must then answer.

Negative Constructive
3000 words
The Negative argues against the the Resolution.
The subject line should start with “1NC”

Affirmative Cross Examination of Negative
10 questions 400 words max
Response 600 words max
Posted as comments of the Neg Constructive, the Affirmative can ask up to 10 questions which the Negative must then answer.

Affirmative Rebuttal
1800 words
The Affirmative should reaffirm their case, staying within the bounds of discussion established by the Constructives and avoiding brand new arguments.
The subject line should start with “1AR”

Negative Rebuttal and Summation
2400 words
The Negative should make final arguments against the Resolution and summarize their position.
The subject line should start with “1NR”

Affirmative Summation
600 words
The Affirmative should summarize their position.
The subject line should start with “2AR”

A few more ground rules:

Editing of messages more than 20 minutes after their original posting is not allowed and will result in deletion of the messages.

For the sake of continuity and timeliness, each speech should be posted within 72 hours of the prior speech’s posting time. Time extensions, if necessary, should be requested via comments.

Debaters are free to quote evidence, although doing so counts toward the word limit. Hyperlinks are welcome, but material connected to the debate via hyperlink is not considered part of the “text” of the debate for purposes of rebuttal. In other words, you have to include the important points in the text of your argument.

The idea is a civil, but passionate discussion of a relevant issue. The format is based on a bit of a hybrid between several debate formats including Lincoln-Douglas, Policy and British Parliamentary Debate. If this goes well, I would encourage others to host similar debates.

So, who wants a piece of me? Any takers?

I’ve accepted such a debate before, but I had considerably more time on my hands at that point. I will consider it, and hope that one of my many betters will rise to the challenge.

This is definitely a job for Wulfy.

I would rather hear Kailey rail against Payday Lenders. (That was so precious, over at 4&20!)

Say, Trotsky, maybe you could put something up about Payday Lenders over at Piss-O-Mine…

Colby should jump in. He’s an expert.

If no one takes you on Wiley, we could fake it with all the weak arguments they’ve already put foward.

We could even spice it up with personal insults and off colored words.

You sure put out a loaded resolution huh; the definition round would be particularly fun. Although, if I took you up on this, then I would have to prove I didn’t suck as a debate teacher.

Although, since I have tried to start similar things many times over, the hypocrisy of not accepting would be too great. So I will take you up on this.

You’ve got yourself an aff…

I was once a debate teacher as well - this should be fun. Colby, drop me a line at [my email address] so I can set up your account.

Wiley, I’ve just returned from a remarkable weekend get-away, and I have a few comments.

First, I’m glad that Colby has accepted the challenge, and I share his reservations concerning several terms of the resolution. I had decided not to accept the challenge based on that alone. “Architect”? “International Justice” (as opposed to International Law)? A tad too much wiggle room there for me. I still await your definition of a foundation for a morality of international relations. Unless such can be established, this debate is like cross-talk.

Regardless, Colby, if you want to do this, I got your back.

What truly convinces me that I don’t wish to engage in such a debate in this venue is the presence of stalkers. I’ve little idea at all why I have such a troll ‘fan club’, and even less why they are tolerated among the right oriented bloggers. I hardly think those are the comment additions you would wish for “honest debate”. I’ve no desire to attract them or put up with them. That’s likely a net loss for us all.

I am assuming that other comments are not allowed on the debate posts. Am I wrong Cody? BTW, I wrote you; let me know if you did not receive the e-mail.

I’m flexible with regard to the specific words of the resolution. I designed it broadly since the goal isn’t to carve out the ground for Affirmative - I’m more interested in Affirmative actually taking the positions they believe. I left it broad on purpose, and if you’d like to narrow it, I’m open to suggestions.

Colby, I got your email.

Colby, also, is there a compelling reason to disallow comments?

1) You have said that the comments section will be part of the debate, via the Q&A round. It might make that simpler if there aren’t other ongoing conversations.

2) This is a pretty heavy undertaking, compared with what is often the chearp-shot environment of blogging. I would hate for these efforts to be cheapened by trollish commenters.

3) Either debater could easily be ‘helped’ by comments that attacked the other debater’s premises. It could turn into team vs individual debate. I would hope that the debate would be a catalyst for conversations, much like real debates are, but not while it is ongoing.

Your thoughts?

Ya know what? Never mind; leave the comments on, it is no big thing.

[…] has had to back out of the debate that I proposed earlier.  As I told him, I’m open to revisions in the specific of the debate but I think it’s […]