Tanki Online Debating Society

[GoldRock 6,165]

 

What is it?

A Skype group of players who wish to get involved in discussion on various issues. A 'motion' will be put forth each week, and then discussed, with the winner(s) of a debate being decided by a selected chairman.

 

How is a winner determined?

With each debate, there will be an independent observer or chairman, who will usually be listed as 'Neutral' for that debate. There may be more than one observer. The criteria for success are:

- Good conduct

- Good grammar

- Convincing arguments

- Reliable sources

 

How do I join?

Send a PM with your Skype name to me or @Therider, or write your Skype name in this topic, expressing an interest to take part.

 

What are the requirements?

- Must be mature (it is recommended that you should be 14 or over, due to the controversial nature of some of this discussion).

- Must be willing to contribute to discussion.

- An interest in making use of, and improving, your debating skills.

 

Members:

(0 wins, 1 loss)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

@AKFlare (0 wins, 1 loss)

(1 win, 0 losses)

@AnuBoi (1 win, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

(2 wins, 0 losses)

@DarkOperative (0 wins, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

@DirtFighter (0 wins, 0 losses)

@FaaiqBilal (0 wins, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 1 loss)

@GoldRock (2 wins, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

@joostcool (1 win, 0 losses)

(1 win, 0 losses)

@Lankbouv (0 wins, 0 losses)

@micotheone (0 wins, 0 losses)

@Raphael2 (0 wins, 0 losses)

@red_tank_the_best (0 wins, 0 losses)

@Remaine (0 wins, 0 losses)

@RiseOfCucumber (0 wins, 0 losses)

@Royalworld (0 wins, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

@shadewarttt (0 wins, 0 losses)

@SonofDeath (0 wins, 0 losses)

@SuperNick95 (0 wins, 0 losses)

@Therider (1 win, 2 losses)

@tiger_of_malaysia (0 wins, 2 losses)

@Tiny1031. (0 wins, 1 loss)

@Valletta (0 wins, 0 losses)

@VoldemortsNose (0 wins, 0 losses)

@whizclips (1 win, 0 losses)

(0 wins, 0 losses)

 

Top Debaters:

- 2

@GoldRock - 2

@AnuBoi - 1

@Therider - 1

 

Previous debates:

'Is the US controlling the world as a superpower?' (call)

Participants: Yes: @Therider vs. No:

Neutral: @tiger_of_malaysia, @SuperNick95, @AKFlare

Winner and Top Debater:

 

'Should gay marriage be legalised?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: vs. No: @Therider

Winner and Top Debater: Not decided

 

'Is WW3 something we will see in our lifetime?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: @Therider, @AKFlare vs. No: @GoldRock

Neutral: @Remaine

Winner and Top Debater: @GoldRock

 

'Should alcohol as a beverage be illegal?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: , , @tiger_of_malaysia vs. No: @GoldRock, @joostcool

Neutral: @Remaine

Winner: No (@GoldRock and @joostcool)

Top Debater: @GoldRock

Chairman's statement:

 

Chairman's opinion - overall, I find that the side against alcohol being illegal were the winners. For one, Gefordeon absolutely bombed it out there - GoldRock had him right where he wanted him. Not to mention, I found that he couldn't respond to the opposing side fluently like they did. He did not provide any sources either. GoldRock, on the other hand, took control of the whole debate, combatting everyone with very valid points, along with sources to back it up for that extra validity; if anything, he's the 'Top Debator' here since he was truly excellent. Joostcool was pretty inactive throughout the debate but when he chimed in, his points were well-structured, often supporting Gold's points.

 

Achilles, I feel performed the best on the side in favour of it - he sometimes provided sources when required though not everytime. I also noticed that when his point was dismantled, he ends up going "I still think" of which isn't a good response starter. It dictates to people that he doesn't have a response; he just went back to the initial point rather than responding with a specific point. Finally, Tiger did decent when he spoke, that is - at times, he only did "+" or "^" which doesn't make the point any more valid. So, I find that the 'No' side were the victors in this.

 

 

'Has school become more about passing than actually learning?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: @Lankbouv, @shadewarttt vs. No: ,

Neutral: @Remaine, @GoldRock,

Winner: No winner.

Top Debater: No Top Debater.

Chairman's statement:

Chairmen/woman's opinion - overall, we feel there weren't any winners of the debate since no one made any points that made them stand out from the rest. The general points made were pretty poor with no evidence to back it up. Lankbouv's conduct was absolutely abysmal and shadewarttt's conduct wasn't any better. Achilles' conduct was decent at the beginning but it fell down toward the end due to the provocation of the opposing side. The No side did do better overall but not enough for them to be deemed as the winners. Had Ali's point been posted in time, the No side would have gotten the victory. Although there was nothing to back up that point, it was by far the best point.

 

 

'Does the Internet bring more good than harm?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: @Therider, vs. No: @Tiny1031, @tiger_of_malaysia

Neutral: @Remaine, @GoldRock

Winner: Yes (@Therider and )

Top Debater: @Therider

Chairman's statement:

Chairmen's verdict - overall, we feel rider's team were the victors in that battle. Therider, in particular, absolutely dominated that debate, putting forward valid points left, right and center, complete with a valid source toward the end to back it all up. Tiger, we feel could've expanded on his arguments a tad bit more - most of what he said were one-liners; however, what he said mostly had validity in them. We acknowledge that there's been a substantial improvement in his debating since earlier today. As for Tiny, there were times in which she couldn't get a word in. This was due to Rider dominating the debate. However, toward the end, she certainly put up a fight. Lapsa12, we think still miscontrued the motion despite us establishing it during a debate pause. There were also times when he switched sides of the argument which supported Tiger's team. However, when he argued for his initial side, his points were pretty top-notch, despite the lack of consistency. It was a great debate overall, but to conclude, we do feel the 'Yes' side prevailed.

 

Summary of the discussion topic, by :

 

I'd like to make the point that bad people will use the internet for bad things, and good people will use the internet for good things. Whether it contains badness or not, doesn't make it bad. Its like the debate as to whether or not guns kill people, or if people kill people. The internet doesn't cause harm itself. Its the way people use it. The internet is not a human being, it cannot make decisions. If we want to make better use of the internet, its not a matter of changing hardware, software, applications, etc, but a matter of increasing the moral values of the people who have access to it.

 

 

'Should immunisations be mandatory?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: , @AnuBoi vs. No: @Therider

Neutral: @Remaine

Winner: Yes ( and @AnuBoi)

Top Debater: @AnuBoi

Chairman's statement:

 

Chairman's verdict - overall, I find that Ali's team are the winners of the debate; however, it was by a very small margin. I would also like to point out that if not for Anu being a supporter, it would be Rider's win. Anu controlled the debate whenever he chimed in, making Ali's one-liners nice elaborative points. At times, Rider wasn't able to respond to his points. That's not to say Rider didn't do well. He was in charge of the debate before Anu came in. His points were also very much backed up. But it almost seemed like he didn't comprehend the content of his source, for when a response against it was made, his response did have that element of irrelevance to it. But otherwise, his points were portrayed well along with sources to back it up.

 

Ali's arguing intrinsically consisted of one-liners and questions. Whilst the points did have validity in them, he didn't expand on them very well. This is why it really was Anu that resulted in him winning. Also, he treated it like it was a Q&A - whilst I acknowledge it was to prove a point, he responded to rider's answer with another question, of which doesn't respond to his answer or with a one-liner, of which wasn't expanded very well. It was a great debate and the winners won by a small margin but I decree Ali's team prevailed.

 

 

'Does absolute truth exist?' (typed)

Participants: Yes: @whizclips, vs. No: ,

Neutral: @GoldRock,

Winner: Yes (@whizclips and )

Top Debater:

Chairman's statement:

 

Chairmen's verdict - overall, we feel that the Yes side won. Achilles used good arguments, based on logical reasoning. Likewise, Selena was able to provide some strong points - the No side, as a team, did perform very well. As for the Yes side, we find that whizclips did surprisingly well for the situation he was in, being able to defend his arguments, though being put on the spot on a few occasions. The real game-changer was Damn_Slow. He made use of sources in his arguments to good effect, and expanded upon his points in great detail.

 

As a team, the Yes side worked very well. Whizclips was able to assert his position on the matter whilst Damn_Slow typed up his arguments. The No side, understandably, had difficulty responding to all of the points Damn_Slow raised. In fact, Achilles admitted he switched sides towards the end, proving the prowess of Damn_Slow's points. Though the No side performed commendably well, with strong arguments which were to the point, we find the Yes side to be the victors, and Damn_Slow is hereby the Top Debater for this debate.

 

Pre-arranged debates are in the post below.

Edited April 8, 2014 by GoldRock

[Therider 2,034]

Date:  

Time: 

Topic: 

Motion to be Debated: 

Chairman:  

Neutral: 

Yes:

No: 

Form of Debate: 

Edited November 16, 2014 by Therider

[Finesse 968]

Cool.

[GoldRock 6,165]

seriously? dont you have anything better to do -.-

Sorry Robbie, but this topic's for people who can string more than a dozen words together into a 'sentence'. Thanks for the unconstructive feedback, anyway.

[Raphael2 3,263]

I'd like to take part. Seems interesting!

[GoldRock 6,165]

I'd like to take part. Seems interesting!

Great to hear - you've been added ;)

[MyLife_MyReign 256]

I'd like to take part. Seems interesting!

Same..

[MyLife_MyReign 256]

Great to hear - you've been added ;)

Add me..You have my Skype ID.

[robble56 117]

Sorry Robbie, but this topic's for people who can string more than a dozen words together into a 'sentence'. Thanks for the unconstructive feedback, anyway.

no , it's for people who's motherlanguage is english , and learn words simple foreigners (like me) won't ever hear.

[GoldRock 6,165]

no , it's for people who's motherlanguage is english , and learn words simple foreigners (like me) won't ever hear.

A large proportion of members don't have English as their first language...

[robble56 117]

A large proportion of members don't have English as their first language...

and a large proportion isn't in this debating society...

Edited April 5, 2014 by robble56

[r_lapsa120 2]

Want to join.

[GoldRock 6,165]

^What's your Skype name?

 

and a large proportion isn't in this debating society...

If you want to debate over this, feel free to join...

[robble56 117]

^What's your Skype name?

 

 

If you want to debate over this, feel free to join...

ofcourse!

 

 not.

 

[Reckoning 178]

Wait, so debates would take place on skype and not in the forum? oh wait yes, that would be not possible without breaking the rules...anyways nice initiatives. would also like to be a part of this.

[GoldRock 6,165]

ofcourse!

 

not.

 

Then please leave this topic.

 

 

Now.

 

 

Wait, so debates would take place on skype and not in the forum? oh wait yes, that would be not possible without breaking the rules...anyways nice initiatives. would also like to be a part of this.

Exactly - debates on Skype could be more informal, more controversial and more involving. If you wish to be added to the group, what's your Skype name?

[shadewarttt 3,350]

I have a skype acc but aint fimiliar with the service. shade_war_tanki.

[Reckoning 178]

Skype - talkto_dude

[The-PIayer2 39]

why datskype

[shadewarttt 3,350]

Any sort of requirements for joining da group?

[Eragon 13,876]

If winner crystal prize? 

[Reckoning 178]

^ nope

[robble56 117]

Sorry Robbie, but this topic's for people who can string more than a dozen words together into a 'sentence'. Thanks for the unconstructive feedback, anyway.

 

 

If you want to debate over this, feel free to join...

 

that makes sense...

 

Then please leave this topic.

 

 

nah i'll stick around for a while

[GoldRock 6,165]

Awesome debate we just held, guys! Really involving and constructive stuff.

'Should alcohol as a beverage be illegal?' (typed)
Participants: Yes: , , @tiger_of_malaysia vs. No: @GoldRock, @joostcool
Neutral: @Remaine
Winner: No (@GoldRock, supported by @joostcool)
Chairman's statement:

Chairman's opinion - overall, I find that the side against alcohol being illegal were the winners. For one, Gefordeon absolutely bombed it out there - GoldRock had him right where he wanted him. Not to mention, I found that he couldn't respond to the opposing side fluently like they did. He did not provide any sources either. GoldRock, on the other hand, took control of the whole debate, combatting everyone with very valid points, along with sources to back it up for that extra validity; if anything, he's the 'Top Debator' here since he was truly excellent. Joostcool was pretty inactive throughout the debate but when he chimed in, his points were well-structured, often supporting Gold's points.

Achilles, I feel performed the best on the side in favour of it - he sometimes provided sources when required though not everytime. I also noticed that when his point was dismantled, he ends up going "I still think" of which isn't a good response starter. It dictates to people that he doesn't have a response; he just went back to the initial point rather than responding with a specific point. Finally, Tiger did decent when he spoke, that is - at times, he only did "+" or "^" which doesn't make the point any more valid. So, I find that the 'No' side were the victors in this.

 

Edited April 5, 2014 by GoldRock

[r_lapsa120 2]

^What's your Skype name?

 

 

If you want to debate over this, feel free to join...

kkiilleerrijs