Arya Samaj

Shishya · Last edited by Shishya on Tue May 16, 2006 12:31 am; edited 1 time in total

Welcome to the Arya Samaj Debate Forum!

If you have something you want to debate, this is the place to do it!

Please read all the posts below if you would like to participate.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:16 am Post subject:

Why a Formal Debate Forum?

As anyone who has participated in an on-line debate before can readily confirm, they are typically unproductive, confusing and generally the cause of resentment between the involved parties. Yet, this should not be surprising, as most debates conducted in on-line forums are informal in nature, where there are no clear rules of conduct regarding the procedure and expected course of events. We hope to change this by introducing a standard procedure for the conduct of formal debates in this forum.

Yet, why do we need to debate at all? Can’t we simply discuss things amicably in an informal and relaxed fashion? Of course, generally speaking, such discussion is a valid means to work out minor differences of opinion. However, this is not always the case. For those of us who take particular issues seriously, there is a need for an in-depth and critical evaluation of the arguments for and against it. Thus, debate is, in many cases unavoidable. With this Formal Debate Forum, we hope to provide a fair means whereby this can be done in a civil and productive manner.

However, there is also a deeper reason why this Formal Debate Forum is important. As Aryans, we value Truth above all else. As Maharishi Swami Dayanand Saraswati taught, we should actively seek to dispel the Darkness of Ignorance with the Light of Truth. Debate is one of the best means to do this, and it is one that Swamiji himself engaged in often. Whether with members of other religions, such as Christianity or Islam, or with the ideas promoted by materialistic science, Swami Dayanand was a noble and fearless combatant against error and falsity and engaged his opponents in open debate whenever necessary. So, in conducting debate in an open and civil fashion, we are to some degree emulating Swamiji in his mission to spread Truth.

A short passage from The Life and Teachings of Swami Dayanand Saraswati by B.C. Singh makes the conduct of Swamiji in debate an example to us all:

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:20 am Post subject:

Formal Debate Outline

The style of formal debate we will be using here at the Arya Samaj Forum is a type of hybrid, including the best features of cross-examination and Lincoln-Douglass debating styles. Some of you familiar with legal proceedings or parliamentary procedure might recognize a few aspects reflected here as well. Below, we present an outline of a typical formal debate using this style. (See the next section for clarification of these headings.)

Preliminaries:

Challenge (Proponent or “Affirmative“)

Acceptance (Opponent or “Negative“)

Resolution Formulation and Rules of Engagement (Moderator/Judge)

Round 1:

Affirmative: Case Presentation

Negative: Cross-Examination Inquiry

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Response

Negative: Case Refutation

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Inquiry

Negative: Cross-Examination Response

Round 2:

Affirmative: Case Defense

Negative: Cross-Examination Inquiry

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Response

Negative: Case Refutation

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Inquiry

Negative: Cross-Examination Response

Round 3:

Negative: Rebuttal

Affirmative: Rebuttal

Round 4:

Negative: Rebuttal and Closing Statement

Affirmative: Rebuttal and Closing Statement

Conclusion:

Evaluation and Ruling (Moderator/Judge)

Debate Poll (All Members)

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:29 am Post subject:

Formal Debate Detailed Outline

Preliminaries:

Challenge (Proponent or Affirmative):

Anyone that would like to debate a particular topic should make what we shall be referring to as a “Challenge”. To do so, he or she should simply post a message in the Debate Forum entitled “Challenge: + the topic to be debated“. For example, if the topic were ‘Monotheism’, then the title should be “Challenge: Monotheism”. In the text of the message itself, it should be clearly stated which position the author would like to take in the debate, either for or against. If against, the individual should provide a positive alternative to the topic in question. (See below for more.)

Please Note: There should be no argumentation at this stage. The point is simply to make a public announcement that you would like to debate a particular issue. One to three sentences should be enough to do this.

Acceptance (Opponent or Negative):

If you see such a Challenge, and would like to take the opposing position, simply post a response indicating your acceptance in the same thread. As above, there is no need for argumentation as of yet. Simply state that you accept the Challenge, and are willing to debate the issue.

Please Note: Debates will only be conducted between two individuals. If a Challenge has already been accepted, do not post a second Acceptance. However, if you would like to help one of the individuals involved in the debate, nothing is stopping you from sending them a personal message with your suggestions. However, all such suggestions, once posted, will be considered the intellectual property and responsibility of the person actually posting for the duration of the debate. So, make sure you really understand someone’s argument before you post it - or else you might find yourself having to defend something you don’t really understand.

Resolution Formulation and Rules of Engagement (Moderator/Judge):

After a topic has been decided upon and two members have consented to participate, one of the Moderators will formulate the exact Resolution which is to be debated and will present the Rules of Engagement for the debate.

The Resolution should be a statement which positively expresses the view of the individual who made the challenge. Using our previous example, if the individual was against Monotheism and for Polytheism, the Resolution should reflect this in it’s wording. Therefore, the person who begins the debate is always the “Proponent” of the issue, a.k.a. the “Affirmative”, for he or she is either proposing or in positive affirmation of something.

If either of the participants are not in agreement with the wording of the Resolution as formulated by the Moderator, they must note this at this stage. It would also be helpful if in such a case the individual would propose a new formulation. After agreement on both sides is reached regarding the wording of the Resolution, the debate can begin.

Please Note: Failure to comply with the Rules of Engagement as outlined by the Moderator shall result in a public warning. Continued incompliance shall result in the automatic forfeit of the debate.

Also, the ‘edit’ feature shall be disabled during the debate. This means that the participants will not be able to edit their posts in the Formal Debate Forum. It is therefore mandatory that all participants make sure their posts contain all the necessary information prior to submission. To do this, the ‘Preview’ button on the text editor can be quite helpful. Double-posting is strongly discouraged. Occasional spelling errors might be corrected by the Moderator, but grammatical errors and lack of clarity in wording or thought will not. The posting individual is ultimately responsible for the content of their posts.

Round 1:

Affirmative: Case Presentation:

To start the debate, the Proponent or Affirmative should present their Case in favor of the Resolution. (As to the details of what constitutes a Case, see below.)

Negative: Cross-Examination Inquiry:

After the Affirmative has presented his or her Case in favor of the Resolution, the Opponent or Negative then receives the opportunity to cross-examine the Affirmative. To do this, any questions or requests for points of clarification directed towards the Case of the Affirmative should be posted in one post.

Please Note: This is not the place for argumentation. Only questions are allowed at this time, and the point is to have the Affirmative make any necessary clarifications before the Negative refutes the Case. There is a limit of 10 questions per Cross-Examination period. If it be found that no clarification is necessary, the Negative can waive his rights to cross-examination.

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Response:

If the Negative has raised any questions, the Affirmative now receives the chance to answer them.

Please Note: This is not an opportunity for the Affirmative to extend his or her Case. Any and all answers must remain as short and succinct as possible, remaining strictly on-topic in relation to the questions at hand.

Also, if there is seen by the Negative to be a need for further clarification on the part of the Affirmative, a second round of Cross-Examination is permissible. Two rounds, however, is the maximum.

Negative: Case Refutation:

Now the Opponent or Negative may present his Case against the Resolution.

Please Note: The Negative is not required to prove the opposite of the Resolution, he or she is only required to disprove the Case of the Affirmative. If, however, the Negative wishes to also present a Counter-Case, he or she is free to do so.

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Inquiry:

See above.

Negative: Cross-Examination Response:

See above.

Round 2:

Affirmative: Case Defense:

At this point, the Affirmative receives the chance to defend his or her Case from the arguments of the Negative. The Affirmative may also extend his or her Case in this post through additional arguments.

Please Note: It is absolutely imperative that the Affirmative respond to all the points of critique mentioned by the Negative in this post. Failure to do so is a technical admission of the verity of the claims of the Negative, and will result in the loss of the debate.

Also, if the Negative has chosen to make a Counter-Case, now is the time for the Affirmative to make his or her arguments against it.

Negative: Cross-Examination Inquiry:

See above.

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Response:

See above.

Negative: Case Refutation:

Here, the Negative receives the chance to continue his or her line of argumentation against the Case of the Affirmative.

Please Note: If the Negative has chosen to present a Counter-Case, it is absolutely imperative that he or she respond to all the points of critique mentioned by the Affirmative. Failure to do so is a technical admission of the verity of the claims of the Affirmative, and will result in the loss of the debate.

Affirmative: Cross-Examination Inquiry:

See above.

Negative: Cross-Examination Response:

See above.

Round 3:

At this stage, the main arguments for and against the proposed Resolution have been made by both parties. From this point on, no new points of argumentation may be introduced into the debate. Participants must limit themselves to the arguments previously discussed. The reason for this is that otherwise, a debate could go on indefinitely. This limitation is in place to ensure that both participants do their best to present a solid Case at the beginning of the debate. Despite this restriction, however, new evidence in support of previous argumentative claims is welcome at this stage.

Negative: Rebuttal:

Here, the Negative receives the opportunity to narrow down his or her line of argumentation to those points he or she feels is vital to the undermining of the Case of the Affirmative.

Please Note: If the Negative chooses to drop or fails to mention some of the previously made points of critique, those points shall be considered relinquished, and must not be responded to by the Affirmative.

Also, if the Negative has chosen to make a Counter-Case, he or she must here refute the points of criticism raised by the Affirmative.

Affirmative: Rebuttal:

Now the Affirmative receives the chance to respond to the arguments raised by the Negative in his or her last post.

Please Note: The Affirmative needn’t respond to any of the previous arguments which have been dropped by the Negative, though he or she is certainly free to do so. But it is imperative that all of the points made by the Negative in the first Rebuttal be covered by the Affirmative.

Round 4:

In this, the final stage of the actual debate, no new evidence is allowed into the discussion. The participants may only refer to evidence which has been presented prior to Round 4. And, of course, no new arguments are allowed. These last Rebuttals are meant to test the persuasive skills of the participants.

Negative: Rebuttal and Closing Statement:

This is the last chance for the Negative to carry over his or her line of argumentation and to make a final plea against the Case of the Affirmative.

Affirmative: Rebuttal and Closing Statement:

This is the last chance for the Affirmative to defend his or her Case from the criticism of the Negative and to make a final plea in favor of the Resolution.

Conclusion:

Evaluation and Ruling (Moderator/Judge):

After the conclusion of the debate itself, the Moderator will make an Evaluation of that which has been presented, culminating in a Ruling.

Please Note: The Evaluation is to be made solely on the basis of the technical correctness of the debate itself, not on the verity of the Case for or against. It is the responsibility of the participants to prove the verity or falsity of the Case in question, not that of the Moderator.

The Ruling can be of three types:

In favor of the Affirmative
In favor of the Negative
Undecided (usually due to a technical failure on the behalf of one or both participants)

Debate Poll (All Members):

After the Evaluation and Ruling have been made, the Moderator will create a public Poll asking whether or not members think the ruling was correct and whether they are for or against the Resolution. The results of this Poll, as well as the entire debate, will remain visible for all to see.

***

Two final notes:

As some of you might have noticed, the Affirmative both begins as well as ends the debate. This may at first seem unfair, but there is a very good reason behind such a practice, which is traditional in nearly all forms of debate.

The Affirmative has what is referred to as the ‘Burden of Proof’, which means he or she has the responsibility to positively prove his or her Case. The Negative, on the other hand, does not need to positively prove anything - he or she need only show the insufficiency of the arguments of the Affirmative. The Negative needn’t ‘prove’ anything other than the inability of the Affirmative the prove their own Case. As this is an unfair advantage, giving the Affirmative the first and the last word is meant to balance out this inequality.
As a general rule, all comments are to be directed towards the Moderator and the general public, and not towards the other participant. This will ensure that the debate remain focused and on-topic.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:31 am Post subject:

What is a Case?

A Case is a series of Arguments made in favor of a Resolution and is composed of at least three parts:

Introduction: A general statement of the intention of the author regarding the Resolution, i.e, what he or she intends to prove during the course of the presentation. The Introduction must also include the Resolution (or Counter-Resolution).
Argumentation: A detailed presentation of all the specific arguments in favor of the Resolution. (See below for more.)
Conclusion: A summary of what the author feels he or she has been able to prove via the presented Argumentation.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:33 am Post subject:

What is an Argument?

An Argument is a claim backed up by some form of Proof and is composed of at least three parts:

Claim: A general statement seen to prove or disprove the Resolution.
Proof: A form of Evidence which upholds the Claim. (See below for more.)
Conclusion: A summary of what the author feels the Evidence proves in relation to the Claim and, most importantly, the Resolution.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:35 am Post subject:

What is Evidence?

Proof is generally considered to be of eight sorts:

Direct Cognizance
Inference
Analogy
Testimony
History
Deduction
Possibility
Non-Existence or Negation

Read here for more.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:39 am Post subject:

The Rules of Engagement

There are three primary Rules of Engagement in the Formal Debate Forum:

By agreeing to take part in a formal debate, both participants commit themselves to seeing it through to the end.
Responses must be made no later than 7 days after the latest post. (Justified exceptions can be made to this rule.)
Arguments are to remain focused on the issues at hand and not at the personalities discussing them.

Failure to comply with the Rules of Engagement will result in a technical loss.

Also, the Moderator has the right to add any specific rules he or she sees fit at the beginning of a debate.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:40 am Post subject:

Rewards

As a kind of reward system, we will make a note of each successfully argued debate in the personal profile of the member in question. This will appear as a number under their personal image or ‘avatar’, and will be visible to all as a sign of their debating skill.

Shishya · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:41 am Post subject:

A Final Note

Just so that you don’t forget: Have fun! Very Happy