This House Believes: That the UN is an Ilegitimate Authority

Remember way back when I suggested setting up a debating section on the forums? This is a sort of test drive for that.

Essentially, this is a competitive debate; that is, eight people sign up to take part (first come first served) the chair assigns them to one side of the debate (in this case, over the legitimacy of the UN as a ruling body) and the groups then go away and post in order of assignment. The two sides are as follows.

The Proponents

The proponents are the ones arguing for the titular issue. In this case, that the UN is an illegitimate authority. They have four people who each speak (or in this case, post) in order.

The Opposition

These four argue against the proposal. So they'd be arguing that the UN is a legitimate authority. Again, four people, each ranked in order of speaking, argue their cases in that order.

I'm not sure if those are the exact names, but thats the gist of it.

The order is as follows; first the first speaker in favour speaks his/her argument, then the oppositions first speaker speaks his/hers. The 2nd proponent speaks, then the second opponent. 3rd proponent, 3rd opponent, 4th proponent, 4th opponent, and then thats it.

Once its done, a panel of judges (normally a set amount in competitions, but it can be as many as you like here) judges who argued best, and give their reasons for their opinion.

Side with the most convinced judges win!

Its worth noting that the judges have to take into account the difficulty of the issue. Convincing people about the tastiness of pie (yes, joke debates happen) is going to be a lot easier than "This House Believes: Hitler Was Right." It is about making your case sound convincing. The proponents of Hitler was right will (hopefully) fail to convince the judges of this fact, but they may make the best of a (very) bad deal. Being a judge isn't easy. I picked this one specifically because I thought it would be quite balanced.

A few points. There is a time limit set for speakers in meatspace, so I'm going to suggest an arbitrary limit of 600 words, quite generous I think. If people find thats too little (or way too much) it can be changed. What this isn't is a free-for-all discussion. So you have to follow the order.

So lets hear it. I'm afraid you don't get to choose which side you get. If no one minds, I'll be the chair. (Chair doesn't have much power anyway, he just minds the rules and assigns the sides.) I'll be flipping a coin to decide who gets what, so its completely random unless demons possess the coin.

Any volunteers? After the votes are in we can convert it into an outright discussion. We need 8 speakers, and at least one judge. (Preferably more.)

EDIT: Bribing the judges with money or foot massages is against the rules. Bribing them with cake is not.

edited 23rd Apr '11 2:50:07 PM by GameChainsaw

Souns interesting, I'd like to join.

As judge or speaker?

(If we lack volunteers, you may need to go speaker.)

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:17:01 PM by GameChainsaw

I intended to be a speaker. Judge is far too easy. ;)

I'd volunteer, but chances are that I won't be here in the coming week.

Sorry, I'll have to decline. Should things change, I'll see what I can do.

Good to see people interested regardless.

Save a spot for Major Tom. He's going to be on opposition.

Uh, the idea is that its random (so you have to be prepared to offer arguments for both sides.) Did he PM you or something?

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:46:32 PM by GameChainsaw

No.

It's a joke. You must not have seen a lot of his posts.

Ah.

As much as I'd love to debate the UN, I'll pass for this topic.