Interest Check for forum game: Debate

[Aelphaeis]

Had an idea recently to introduce a new game to the forum community. I guess I'll start with an idea first and then I'll get into the technical details.
Please NOTE :
Objective is to win the debate, or win others over to a side but not to determine the truth.
NB : Forum Members who are not playing in a round are asked to refrain from posted in the actually game round thread.
The idea is that the host will find 3 debate topics and post them along with a start date. The host will check the number people, a minimum of 9 people is needed to play (3 judges (the host is a judge), 3 debaters a team).
The host will determine is on which team and which team represents which side of the first debate topic on the start date.
If there are more than 8 debaters per team, then the host will make a second game with the second topic (hence why you post 3 debate topics), the judges will remain the same. If there are still more people then they will go to the 3rd topic.
Each stage of the debate will take 48 hours. The host will post the official argument statements @ the ending of each stage. The next stage will begin after the host posts. The 24 hours should be counted from that point onward.

Game Play;
Stage 1:
The host will post a minimum of 3 arguments for which each team can vote on.
The host will then determine which team represents which time at the end of this stage.

Stage 2:
Team supporting the debate topic will pm their opening argument to the host
Team against the debate topic will pm their opening argument to the host
(what their argument is, why it should be like this)

Stage 3:
Team against will try to rebuttal against the supporting team

Stage 4:
Supporting team will rebuttal against the against team

Stage 5:
Supporting team and Against team will ask/answer questions to each other on thread

Stage 6:
Both teams will attempt to make a final argument.

Stage 7:
Judges will come to a conclusion as to who has the better argument and post their votes and why they?ve voted this way.

Rules:
Team members and host are not allowed to discuss arguments with people outside of their teams (where applicable).
Judges cannot give advice to the teams.
People must try to contribute to their teams.
Teams cannot mention cannot use religious belief to justify argument.
Teams that do not submit an argument within the appropriate time will lose by default.


Judging:
What are judges judging?

Components of an argument
Issue : host gives you this
Conclusion : judges determine this
Reason : teams are responsible for
Evidence : teams are responsible for
Style : teams are responsible for

Judgement will be determined by logical validity and truth of premises. Please note that the logical validity is not affected by truth and therefore something can be logically valid without being true.
For example:

1

All people who have names that begin with the letter A are Ninjas
Aelphaeis has a name that begins with the letter A
Therefore
Aelphaeis is a Ninja

The above mentioned statement is logically valid, but is not true.

Conversely,

2

All proper nouns begin with a capital letter
Aelphaeis has a name that begins with the letter A
Therefore
Aelphaeis has a girlfriend

The above mentioned statement is logically invalid, but everything said is true.

In this situation 1 will get more points than 2 even though 2 is correct and 1 is not, because 1 has more validity than 2.

[Aelphaeis]

Things judges will look for: (the good things)
Logical Deductive Argument Forms
1) Modus Ponens
If A then B
A
---
therefore B

2) Modus Tollens
if A then B
not B
---
therefore not A

3) Hypothetical Argument
If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
---
therefore if A then D

4) 4 chain argument
A
if A then B
if B then C
---
therefore C

5) Disjunctive argument
Either A or B
Not B and Not A
---
therefore Not A and Not B

6) Universal Instantiation (UI)
All men are Mortal
Socrates is a man
----
therefore Socrates is Mortal

7) Universal Syllogism
All As are Bs
All Bs are Cs
---
therefore All As are Cs

Things judges will look for: (the not so good things. If I get positive feedback I'll put a brief description for each of these so people know what they are)

Ad Hominem – An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person’s reasons.

Ad Populem – An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favoured by a large group is desirable.

Ad Verecundiam – Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.

Begging the question – An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning

Casual oversimplification – Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

False dilemma – Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two

Confusion of cause and effect - Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing recognize that the two events may be influencing each other.

Emotional language - The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence. Common emotions appealed to are fear, hope, patriotism, pity and sympathy.

Equivocation – A key word of phrase is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.

Wishful thinking – Making a fault assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.

Faulty analogy – Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities

Glittering Generality – The use of vague emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

Hasty Generalization - A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.

Neglect of Common Cause – failure to recognize that two events may be related because of effects of a common third factor.

Explaining by naming – Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behaviour, you have adequately explained the event

Post Hoc – Assuming that a particular event ,B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.
The impossible certainty fallacy – assuming that a research conclusion should be rejected because it is not absolutely certain.

Perfect Solution – Falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted.

Red Herring – An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue to help “win” an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue.

Slippery slope – Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such chain of events.

Straw person – Distorting your opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist.


I got a few fallacies from :
"Asking the Right Questions: guide to critical thinking" edition 9 by M.Neil Browne and Stuart M.Keeley

[*jdm*]

you'd need good topics

[Reasoner]

I would be interested, but it would really depend on the topics, like jdm said.

[Revoltion]

Concerns:
1) Topics. Most debatable topics aren't to be talked about here, therefore I'd like to ask that whatever topics are chosen are run by me first.
2) Multiple topics. I'd like to fit everything into one thread if possible, at max two. Look at mafia, where everything is on one thread. If every other topic on the front page is another part of this thread there is a problem.

[Aelphaeis]

Concerns:
1) Topics. Most debatable topics aren't to be talked about here, therefore I'd like to ask that whatever topics are chosen are run by me first.

No problem, could you tell me ahead of time which topics are taboo? I'm guessing religious subjects are obvious

2) Multiple topics. I'd like to fit everything into one thread if possible, at max two. Look at mafia, where everything is on one thread. If every other topic on the front page is another part of this thread there is a problem.

The idea is that with the current team size, 1 thread can house 19 people. 2 threads would house 35. I don't recall seeing more than 35 people in mafia before, and its less demanding than this game, personally I would be very very very very surprised if this game exceeded 19 players on any occasion.

If it really becomes a problem though, we could always just re-size the teams/judge bench accordingly per round.

[Boleslav]

Count me in. *rolls up sleeves*


Let's do this.

[Revoltion]

Taboo topics are in the rules, but its pretty much said in this:

• * politics
• * religion
• * sex and sexuality
• * personal contact information

Moreso covered in the rules here

And yeah, misread. Although I think the 2nd group could just wait a few days and do it in that thread.

[Aelphaeis]

Taboo topics are in the rules, but its pretty much said in this:


Moreso covered in the rules here

And yeah, misread. Although I think the 2nd group could just wait a few days and do it in that thread.

I have a question on sex and sexuality. Does this refer to anything relating or does it have boundaries. For example, there's presently an issue like "Prostitution should be made legal". While this does touch on sexuality, many of the arguments don't surround sexuality.

When I see sex and sexuality I get the impression I can't say things more dealing around the area of sexual orientation: For example a topic like "Should gay couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children?"



Each of those covers a massive topic range. So its really very limiting. I'll have to be especially creative.

[Revoltion]

Would fall under adult content.
And I hope especially creative doesn't mean trying to squirm through the rules :>