Freiburger: @ cudlemii did you received my mail?

Tgirl4real:

I will suggest a separate thread for the debate proper. This is already getting too long. If not, only the judges and debaters will show up.

Odunnu: So enough cinema has been on and here I was thinking e'body is just registering names and taking seats waiting for tomorrow.
[s]Make I no lie, I like wetin una do Tpia. Maybe if we keep ignoring her like this, she would stop being antagonistic[/s]

Cuddlemii:

Bros, which are one u dey do? Are u for or against?

Chrisbenogor:

na that broom setup those lagosians as rain begin fall dem nor see umblerra again.

That's the problem with rules, who then decides the argument is killed? For instance I can be arguing with you now even when I know you have killed it, I can continue to quote and waste all the time in the world but it comes down to say bros david to say yo chris shut it!

Anyways lets hold on to that, when the final structure is released and you see the pattern I am sure you will understand why that rule will not be needed.

Chrisbenogor: Dear All,

So we have worked hard and come up with the rules which you have seen (and hopefully liked ) and we are almost done with everything. Having learned the lesson of listening for opinions in order to make this better we are coming up with two options and would like debaters and readers alike to choose which they would prefer.

Option 1 Debate as a Team
Debating as a team and meeting to strategise, we allow each team a chance to post something for each round, the choice of who and content of post goes to the team. They can either choose to streamline their posts in each round for potency or they can allow an individual total control over one round, each round would be unique and there would chance for members to pose rebuttals but the main thing is what ever they do represents their team. This ends a round for the judges/audience to judge and score points for the team.

At the end of the rounds the points would be tallied. The rounds would then be tallied along with votes by the audience and a winning team emerges.
This would give one single clean debate on one topic and involve everyone albeit in different capacities.
All posts will be given words limit.


Option 2 Debate as individuals
Rather than working debating as a team and meeting to strategise, we allow each debater post his argument for or against the topic, give room for all to read through , then allow each debater to post a rebuttals to any or as many of the opposing views. After that we then allow each debater to defend the rebuttals against him/his views. This ends a round for the judges/audience to judge and score points.

Those with the highest point will proceed to the next stage during which the judges will throw new questions in line with the topic to all participants and we follow the same process until the final round

The debaters will be given words limit.


As always your ideas are welcome.

On behalf of debate organizers.

Sagamite:

Aunty, I need the 6th rules to be part of the rules before I can join. It is really critical.



That is the kind of shyt I want to avoid.

There are 5 judges, one will draw their attention to the funeral of the person I am debating with's argument and they will vote.

There will be a 24 hour quorum, any judge not present to vote or not voting on the funeral within 24 hours will have their vote count discarded.

The majority vote of the judges will be the decider if I should say "ashes to ashes" or whether I am performing a vivisepulture.

AHHH! RONKE! MO TI GBE GRAMMAR DE O! (I don bring the grammars)

Pataki: Oh wow!

7 pages and still trending, yet no point 'for' or 'against' the topic has been raised.

OK, I will be back.

tpia@:
political topics should be debated in politics or general section if the mods cant patrol the thread.

this thread has nothing to do with literature despite literary being in the title.

but make una carry on- i already know i speak in greek.

dabrake: please, weekend won't be on point for me. modem subscription don exhaust. abeg. make e be monday as I go need post from office.

ayox2003: I'm in, I'm in, I'm in rah rah!



Frawzey

Freiburger: cudlemii, is it going to be on Saturday ar on sunday?

Roland17: Having carefully read through the guidelines and procedure for the debate, i must say am very impressed with cuddlemii and everyone involved in the planning of this debate, but i need some clarifications with regards to Round 1 of the debates..

(1) Would there be a sequence for submiting papers? or would participating debaters submit their arguments all at once, if the latter is the case, am worried there would be too much information on display at once for judges..

(2) Lastly, if participating debaters are allowed to pick opponents for rebuttals it might end up lobsided as some debaters might pick interest in a particular opposing argument, i would suggest the plannning crew pitch contestants against each other based on the side of coin they support, thus they are aware of their opponents and do not have to scramble for one opposing argument.

Good Job guys..

Looking forward to 2moro.

violent:
I would encourage OP to lift the restriction on the use of words such as "idiotic", "moronic", "silly", “cretin”, “dimwit” etc. In my opinion, there are are often times when these words are not intended as an insult but a genuine reflection of the opinion presented.

It also appears that females are largely underrepresented on the list of the debaters. I wouldn't imagine that this is an intentional omission, except of course in the bizarre case where OP strongly believes that there isn't a single female on this forum that is capable of making a strong reasonable articulate argument.

4. No harsh wording.
a. Words like "idiotic", "moronic", "silly", “cretin”, “dimwit” etc are not welcome here. You can debate without being inflammatory.
b. *NOTE: The words in quotations are an example only and not to be taken literally.

cheddarking: Really looking forward to reading sagamite's 'inteligent' comments...