Debate Now Part II of the Debate: "We" should not be worried about....

Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by usmbguest5318, Apr 16, 2018.

  1. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    I've given up asking questions. l merely float on a tsunami of acceptance of anything life throws at me... and marvel stupidly.
    -- Terry Gilliam
    Discussion Structure (the following is the same as found in Part I):
    This thread is part two of a two-part discussion/debate.
    • In Part I -- affirmative arguments -- which is this thread, members are bid to identify what "we" should be worried about.
    • In Part I, because is the the place for affirmative posts, you don't get to attack, refute, rebut or counter-argue anyone's post. You may chose any one post you want from Part I and refute it in Part II.
    • In part-two -- negative (counter) arguments/rebuttals -- which is a separate thread, members are bid to offer a counterargument/rebuttal to one member's post that is found in this thread. Pick any one post from Part I (other than a clarification post or the OP) that appeals to you and present your counterargument/rebuttal to it.
    What do I mean by the above? I mean that if, for example, a member asserted in Part I, "The thing we should be worried about in the U.S. is toe cheese," then if you want to offer a rebuttal to that post, your thesis statement must be the negative of the other member's thesis assertion, that is, it must be, "We should not in the U.S. be worried about toe cheese." Here are a couple more examples:
    • Part I -- Affirmative: Humanity should be worried that big experiments won't happen.
      Part II -- Negative: Humanity should not be worried that big experiments won't happen.
    • Part I -- Affirmative: American citizens should be worried about the Is-Ought Fallacy of science and morality.
      Part II -- Negative: American citizens should not be worried about the Is-Ought Fallacy of science and morality.

    Things to notice:
    • The title question does not ask what "we" should be most worried about. Thus you need only identify a thing that "we" should be worried about.
    • Definition of "we" for the purpose of Parts I and II -- You may construe "we" to mean either of the following, but only one of them and nothing other than the following:
      • Option 1 --> "We" means all of humanity.
      • Option 2 --> "We" means the citizenry of the U.S.
    • This is the "Structured Debate Forum." That's why there is a structure to how this thread and Part I work.

    Thread Discussion Topic and Rules (The following is not the same as in Part I):
    This topic of your post in this thread will depend on what Part I post you choose to rebut. What you're doing in Part II is rebutting a Part I affirmative post that struck you as being worth rebutting. Accordingly, the topic of your remarks will be whatever the other member identified as the thing about which "we" should worry. You must explain why we should not worry about whatever the member identified.
    1. Provide a link to the post from Part I that you are rebutting and use the @Mention feature so the other member is aware that you've rebutted his/her Part I post. (You may instead, if you prefer, quote it in its entirety.)
    2. Write and post your rebuttal to one other member's post.
      • Rebuttals to the OP of Part I are not permitted.
      • You may rebut one and only one post from Part I.
        • If you want to rebut/refute posts other than the one you choose to rebut here in Part II, do it in a thread of your own creation.
      • The first sentence of your prose must begin as follows: "[insert your meaning for "we"] should not be worried...."
      • Your rebuttal must comply with SDF rules and this threads rules.
    3. Post quantity --> In Part II, the person posting a rebuttal to a Part I post gets two posts in this thread. The person who posted the original post in Part I gets one. That gives each "conversation" a total of two posts between Parts I and II -- two for the affirmative poster and two for the negative poster.
      • "Clarification Exception" --> If you need to post to ask for a clarification of the rules, you can do that. That is the only exception to the rules. Do not abuse that exception by asking for clarification and posting any other kind of comment that is not strictly a rule clarification question.

        I'm going to trust that you folks can approach the thread with integrity; however, if I think you are abusing the "clarification exception," I will ask to have your post deleted.
      • I, the OP-er, get to post more than once in this thread, but only for the purpose of providing rule clarifications, and because my first post in the thread is this one which contains only the rules.
    Part II FAQ:
    • If I didn't post in Part I, can I still rebut someone in Part II?
      • No. If you haven't put your own ideas "out there" to be challenged, you don't get to challenge someone else's.
    • Can one declare that the reason we shouldn't worry about "whatever the other member identified in Part I" is because it's stupid?
      • No. No poster may make a bald declaration of any sort; however, rebutters may explain why they think we should not worry about it and then conclude "for the foregoing reasons, it'd be silly, stupid, whatever to worry about "that."
    • What if I want to rebut more than one post from Part I?
      • Do it whatever threads other than Parts I and II that suit you.
        • If Parts I and II go well, I will (or someone else can) create a Part III that members can use to rebut multiple other posts. For now, I just want to keep the debate structure simple.
     

Share This Page