F1 Debate Team

[Kopite Girl 0]

Cause I have time on my hands, I have an idea.

Like the american college kids have debate teams, how about we do that here.

Each week, we pick an F1 driver or a team. We have two teams of two or three who will be assigned to go for and against. We assign an impartial judge who gets to take everything into account and make a decision on who has won the debate, this could work and could make us appreciate another team or driver more.

For example. Jenson Button. I am a major JB fan, but may be nominated to be on the against team. That would be interesting.

Like Mike's race reports we'd put our names down, but the teams have to choose a lead who will open and close the debate for whatever side they're debating for. The two leaders also pick the judge. But has to be discussed between them.

I think would be interesting and would eliminate for this particular thread any fanboyism.

What do you guys think? Fail idea or try it out?

Kopite Girl

BradSpeedMan

Monza Gorilla

Quiet One

JHS

Tommy

adamstrags (judging only)

AleHop

The Professor

Argento Reloaded

freaky2 (tanita, have put you here cause you're pretty impartial and a second opinion is always welcome.)

Autumnpuma

Cavallino

Max Mosley

piquettheterrible2

[monza gorilla 1]

Must say, that's a cracking idea.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Cause I have time on my hands, I have an idea.

Like the american college kids have debate teams, how about we do that here.

Each week, we pick an F1 driver or a team. We have two teams of two or three who will be assigned to go for and against. We assign an impartial judge who gets to take everything into account and make a decision on who has won the debate, this could work and could make us appreciate another team or driver more.

For example. Jenson Button. I am a major JB fan, but may be nominated to be on the against team. That would be interesting.

Like Mike's race reports we'd put our names down, but the teams have to choose a lead who will open and close the debate for whatever side they're debating for. The two leaders also pick the judge. But has to be discussed between them.

I think would be interesting and would eliminate for this particular thread any fanboyism.

What do you guys think? Fail idea or try it out?

Great Idea

I just don't have consistent online time... but I think that won't matter. Sign me up.

[Quiet One 15]

I nominate myself as impartial judge in the case of worthless Jenson Button

[Kopite Girl 0]

I nominate myself as impartial judge in the case of worthless Jenson Button

I'm nominating myself for Alonso. So be nice!

Also guys, would it be good idea to do drivers and teams of yesteryear?

[monza gorilla 1]

Also guys, would it be good idea to do drivers and teams of yesteryear?

Most definitely. Some of the best comedy teams and drivers were from a while back.

[JHS 1]

Sure, count me in.

[Quiet One 15]

Most definitely. Some of the best comedy teams and drivers were from a while back.

Finally I will be able to make my case for Jacques Lafitte!

And bring back the story of teams like Coppersucar and Eurobrun, which could give us some perspective on whether teams like Virgin and HRT are such a shame for F1 or not.

[Schumikonen 2]

I'm nominating myself for Alonso. So be nice!

Also guys, would it be good idea to do drivers and teams of yesteryear?

I could be nomitated in the against him team I think I would do a good job there

[yurp 0]

Nice idea - can I offer a few suggestions...

Firstly - I'd like to offer my services as judge only - I wouldn't like to debate, but would like to be able to jump on anyone using ad hominem or false arguments - it always bugs me when people do that - grrrr.

Second - I would think it wise to start off with a debate about some second/third tier drivers - i.e. Glock vs Kovi / Petrov v Kobay / Hulk vs Liuzzi / Algiosaurus vs Buemi / Webber vs Massa / Chandhok vs Button.

If you start with some top tier drivers the debates might just explode with vitriol, hatred and bile.

Third - I suggest that teams get together before the start of the debate and seperate their opening arguments so that for the first 6 posts (if it's 3 vs 3 people) we just get unrepeated evidence. After that the teams should be limited to alternate posts. i.e. - if one of the team posts, they have to wait for their openents to post before they can.

Forth - The judge should have the right to jump in ONLY to correct of object to certain lines of arguments on the basis that they are false, unrelated or personal in nature.

Fifth - Debaters posts should be limited in length. The key will be to use those words to make concise points one at a time. Its important to prioritise the arguments of each team in order to have a decent debate. (I would be very bad at this, that's why I'd only like to judge.)

EDIT - oops typo

[Kopite Girl 0]

Adam. Awesome!

I don't think we can have driver v driver though. Its better perhaps to stick to one driver/team at a time so that the for and against argument can occur. I like your ideas, and spot on about limited posts. Each team member should get one post, except for the team leader who gets two.

And yes. I think you're pretty impartial. So judging is all good dude. Except over Petrov.

Thanks mate! Excellent stuff.

[yurp 0]

Adam. Awesome!

I don't think we can have driver v driver though. Its better perhaps to stick to one driver/team at a time so that the for and against argument can occur. I like your ideas, and spot on about limited posts. Each team member should get one post, except for the team leader who gets two.

And yes. I think you're pretty impartial. So judging is all good dude. Except over Petrov.

Thanks mate! Excellent stuff.

Thanks - nice to see you agree with...

Second - I would think it wise to start off with a debate about some second/third tier drivers - i.e. Glock vs Kovi / Petrov v Kobay / Hulk vs Liuzzi / Algiosaurus vs Buemi / Webber vs Massa / Chandhok vs Button.

If you start with some top tier drivers the debates might just explode with vitriol, hatred and bile.

More seriously though - I understand more about what you mean now - just the for vs against 1 driver/team. That makes more sense than what I thought you meant (driver vs driver) actually. Yay for you.

But yes, let's start with second rate drivers like Buemi, Kobay and Button (like you say).

That way we won't get onto Petrov until last, so I won't have to worry about my impartiality on that matter.

[Quiet One 15]

Thanks - nice to see you agree with...

More seriously though - I understand more about what you mean now - just the for vs against 1 driver/team. That makes more sense than what I thought you meant (driver vs driver) actually. Yay for you.

But yes, let's start with second rate drivers like Buemi, Kobay and Button (like you say).

That way we won't get onto Petrov until last, so I won't have to worry about my impartiality on that matter.

We should write down a crash course on some of the most common logical fallacies, so impartial judges can easily spot things like ad-hominem arguments or non sequiturs and thus save us endless circular arguments?

Or, even simpler, I will have the final word on everything. So, do I agree with myself on this? Yes, I do. Ok, bill approved. I will have the final word on everything as I just democratically voted. Vox Quiet One, vox Dei.

Thanks for participating! Please, do come again!

[yurp 0]

We should write down a crash course on some of the most common logical fallacies, so impartial judges can easily spot things like ad-hominem arguments or non sequiturs and thus save us endless circular arguments?

Or, even simpler, I will have the final word on everything. So, do I agree with myself on this? Yes, I do. Ok, bill approved. I will have the final word on everything as I just democratically voted. Vox Quiet One, vox Dei.

Thanks for participating! Please, do come again!

I vote that I have the final say on everything too.

That makes 2 votes for me.

[yurp 0]

Oh yes - and here's another idea - 1 judge, but the victory should be decided by jury of 2,4 or 6 other members. Judge may cast deciding vote in case of a tie.

EDIT - if no overall majority reached, third party may court others for hugs and kisses. if minority victory, repeat debate must be held on whether voting system or debating parties are at fault.

[Quiet One 15]

Great idea, Adam! Wait, are we talking about the fights in Jell-o between female members of the Forum, right?

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I vote that I have the final say on everything too.

That makes 2 votes for me.

I vote I will have the final final say after you and Andres. and that is the end. fullstop. dot.

[AleHop 0]

I would only participate on this if we agree that Alonso is the best.

I wouldn't participate on such farce otherwise.

[freaky2 1]

Great idea! I'm unworthy though, so I'll just be an avid reader ^^

[Rainmaster 7]

First issue: did Alonso jump the start?

No seriously, it's a good idea. I'd be happy to participate in some way, as long as there is no actual pressure on me to post anything worthwhile; becomes too much like hard work then! I'd be happy to jump in and call someone an idiot every now and then, mind you.

Nobody should dare to reply to this post with "idiot" either, or "twat" or..., in fact just don't reply to it. K thanks bye.

[Insider 0]

I nominate myself as impartial judge in the case of worthless Jenson Button

I've just seen this - watch it, matey!

[monza gorilla 1]

For some reason Eddie Cheever springs to mind.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Can I judge driver´s wife/girlfriend?

[Kopite Girl 0]

No pressure Georgie. Just say what you think!

@sean dude - you in or out my friend?

[Autumnpuma 0]

I like this idea until I got to adam's post where he nominated himself as judge. Though he may be impartial as far as drivers go, he's certainly partial as far as posters go. Also, I think this should be about a convincing argument and not about the structure of the argument. I see Adam judging the latter far more than the former.

I think the 'winner' should be decided by a poll. Wouldn't it be a far better barometer of a person's argument to convince a majority of readers than one judge?

If this can get away from any one person being a 'judge' then I'm aboard. If not, then I'll be a happy observer of the mayhem.