Talk:Debate/Archive 2

ArchiveBot introduction
I hate seeing a post from 2004 as the first thing on any talk page. I'll look into the archives if I want that. Would anyone be opposed see what I did there ;) to the introduction of an archive bot? I will wait approx. 48 hours and then attempt to put it in to take anything older than a year, due to silent consensus unless anyone wishes to vocalise their opposition to such an action? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits by DrCrazy102 (23:15 12 August (UTC))
As promised a list of changes by section. I have not included the section templates of Refimprove nor Unreferenced in this list. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * History - removal of citation; Example of Athenian Democracy provided of historical debating area, notably political.


 * Emergence of Debating Societies - “Debating topics covered a broad spectrum of topics while the debating societies welcomed participants from both genders and all social backgrounds” was changed into neutral wording;


 * Parliamentary debate – added links for readers to view when looking at the section; changed “it” to “proposal” and removed “eventually” since it is extraneous;


 * Presidential debate – added some links to the wiki articles for Republican and Democratic parties; fiddled with some of the language to improve readability;


 * Tibetan Buddhist Debating – fixing some NPOV issues around language; added some in-line tags; changed title name “debate” to “debating”;


 * Parliamentary Debating – changed title name “debate” to “debating”; added some in-line tags; added link to ESU Schools Mace with emphasis to provide context of origin;


 * Emergency Debating – Expand Selection template added, tried for some joviality;


 * British Parliamentary Debating – Added some in-line tags; moved paragraph from “Parliamentary debating” to “British Parliamentary Debating” due to nature of paragraph content


 * Canadian Parliamentary Debating – Added some in-line tags; changed some minor wording; added paragraph break between “normal” style and “squirrelable” style (all while learning a new Canadian word); added “ marks around teams since the words are used in a contextual sense and do not typically denote the actual “government” and “opposition” of Canadian government;


 * American Parliamentary Debating – Expand Selection template added; changed in-line tag to “According to whom” from “citation needed” to clarify the presumed reasoning behind original tag;


 * Mace Debating – changed title name from “debate” to “debating”; clarified the structure of teams to “Two opposing teams, consisting of two people, debate an affirmative motion”; added in-line tags; minor wording changes; added link to POI (competitive debating);


 * Turncoat Debating – changed title from “debate” to “debating”; added “according to whom” and “clarify” in-line tags;


 * Jes Debating – changed title from “debate” to “debating”; removed citation due to failed verification of source material (linked to homepage asking for people to join, so technically it was promotion but I’m gonna assume some good faith here);


 * Public Debating – changed title from “Debate” to “Debating”; added sub-heading for IPDA


 * IPDA - removed “contiguous” since the word is being misused; removed “striking” due to POV; added some in-line tags;


 * Australasia Debating - changed wording; included in section lede info on team size;

If you have any concerns or problems with these edits, please comment underneath the relevant Dot point.

If you notice that I have not included part of an edit of a section, feel free to add it onto the end of the section-edit summary (a.k.a. dot point).

Cheers, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Structure of the Article, WP:SOAPBOX of IPDA and Name of Article
I have some key problems with the article Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Structure of the article being a mere list of the styles/forms without any key structure to the article. There is a section on Parliamentary Debating, then British, and there is mentions of both styles/forms much later in the American and Global styles/forms. I propose we actually go through this article and form a more unified system of structure based on the relations between each style/form, and the geological placings of debating organisations if not creating a second article for the debating organisations as a list, though I feel that would be slightly unnecessary and would ultimately create a WP:STUB.
 * 2) IPDA's section currently reads like WP:PROMOTION due to the complete lack of IPDA sources. I would like to ask if other editors could try to spend about 10 minutes doing some googling of IPDA to find some sources or even copying sources from the International Public Debate Association's article. I will post a request at IPDA's main article talk page to hopefully have some editors use the sources available there on this article.
 * 3) The name of this article is, in my opinion, inappropriate as it does not cover "debating" per se but is instead almost devoted to "competitive debating", as has been discussed before. I am going to boldly move the article to the proposed namespace, see if anyone objects vocally and then go from there, while asking for this page to become a disambiguation linking to Debate (parliamentary procedure) and Debate (competitive), while keeping the current WP:HATs.

Requested move 17 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: "withdrawn nomination" Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Debate → Debate (competitive)

– Per discussion from "this topic is broader than the article", "Disambiguation proposal", "Merge", "Debate in general or educational?" and "Educational/Competitive Debating" discussions. The current article contains content more suited for an article title Debate (competitive) rather than Debate as a general form of discussion, though aspects could be used in both, such as the lead, after due consideration and editing. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer, the content is not useful for a topic based on the general form of debate instead of a school-based, or competition-based, article labelled as Debate. There would have to be a major rewrite to make the content match the article without being a misnomer. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification of what I mean by major re-write: take out all competitive debating and make this an article concerned only with the concept of debating and its history and uses, with "see also" templates for political and competitive uses. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is better to undertake a major rewrite than to create a false sense of ambiguity for a clear WP:DABCONCEPT case. bd2412  T 12:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question for : Would you support a major re-write that would practically cull this page down in words to the lead and a few paragraphs of history and uses, to avoid just the competitive debating styles, while creating a new article that contains much of the current content under the title Debate (competitive) ? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article as written covers senses that aren't properly competitive, e.g., bloviation in the legislature. If it was rewritten to focus on only some of this, then an umbrella article would still be needed, and it would still have to be titled debate, so moving the current umbrella article is fairly pointless in any case. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read my clarification ? I am still proposing to have a "Debate" article with content, but moving all of the competitive content onto a new article-page, which will mean a big reduction in words on the "Debate" article.
 * I don't see why this article needs to be moved to accomplish that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I guess WP:SPLIT will fix User:Drcrazy102's problem. Sawol (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title as failure of WP:NATURALDIS. Maybe competitive debate instead (possibly as move target, but far better as newly-split article as discussed above). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken from WP:NATURALDIS - "If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." I have proposed a disambiguated name per WP:DISAMBIG due to Debate being the WP:PRIMARY topic. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am withdrawing the WP:REQMOVE and will instead propose a WP:SPLIT to take out the competitive debating styles and simply focus on what debate is as a form of discussion instead of competition. I will still propose splitting into the proposed article title of Debate (competitive) though, per WP:DISAMBIG. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting of Debate into Debate and Competitive debating
I have no idea how to request a formal WP:SPLIT, but I am proposing a WP:CONSPLIT whereby the forms and styles of competitive debating are removed and placed into a separate article, while the current article (Debate) would have a section named "Competitive debating" that would contain a summary of Competitive debating and would feature a "See also:" template in a section named "Competitive Debating styles".

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have sent messages to the active members of WP:DEBATE and I have put up a message on WP:POLITICS's talk page, here Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended proposed article title to Competitive debating per discussion comments. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree yeh that makes sense Bogger (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion May I suggest splitting it to competitive debating instead? The parentheses seem kinda off to me. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was doing this based on WP:DISAMBIG's guidelines and the precedent of Debate (parliamentary procedure). If enough people think it is an issue, then I'm happy to go along and change the proposed split-to article. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with no parentheses. Debate (parliamentary procedure) refers to debate inside of another topic (its a subtopic of parliamentary procedure), where Competitive Debate is completely separate topic. I feel that Competitive Debate is a more appropriate name then Debate (Competitive). I also think if split the way you suggest, Debate and Competitive Debate would both become primary topics and creating a disambiguation page for Debate would not be the best solution ImVeryAwesome (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposer Comment: I have created a draft article that would replace the redirect, here. Please have a look and see if I have forgotten anything important and that it doesn't break any policies or guidelines. It is basically the current content though. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The draft starts a bit too abruptly: "In competitive debates, teams compete against each other and are judged the winner by a list of criteria that is usually based around the concepts of "content, style and strategy"". That does not really define what a competitive debate is or in what contexts does it occur. Dimadick (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure what the point of this change is. Debate has many contexts; competitive debate is, frankly, the primordial one. I don't see the advantage to doing this, other taking more of people's time when they're looking for something. Braniff747SP (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this should be filed under CAT:SPLIT. Braniff747SP (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, under Category:Articles to be split from August 2015 and Category:All articles to be split. I don't know when it occurred, but likely some time after I added the template to the article or perhaps when I updated the template. So I am wondering why this is such a big issue? Also, bots take a while to actually do some things so this may have been a late bot-update to the category. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (added links Bogger (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC))

How can we add Legal debate to this article?
This is a fairly obvious inclusion to have and yet it is clearly not mentioned in the article at all. Should we go with a "See also" or a "Main article and lede" approach? I personally lean towards the latter, but it raises the issue of where to place it under the current section titles without being misleading, or what to change the section titles to, to avoid confusion. Comments? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150519094415/http://debateclash.com/2015/05/debate-and-individual-event-times/ to http://debateclash.com/2015/05/debate-and-individual-event-times/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204005159/http://www.nationalforensics.org/national-forensic-journal to http://www.nationalforensics.org/national-forensic-journal
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930231248/http://www.oxford-union.org/members/rules/formsofthehouse to http://www.oxford-union.org/members/rules/formsofthehouse
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304081754/http://www.gomang.org/packet_files/debate_notes.pdf to http://www.gomang.org/packet_files/debate_notes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Jes Debate Section
I was trying to find some sources for this, and I think I figured it out. First, this is apparently what a prestigious private school in Ireland (nicknamed "Jes"). This school has then called their program for their debate team "Jes Debating", however, they actually debate in the Mace Style. This is not a form of debate elsewhere, and going back in the records it is actually evident that this edit was made by a student at that school. I was going to delete this section but wanted to put up a notice before I did. If nobody responds within the next 5 days, I am going to go ahead with this. Thanks! Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 17:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Online Debate Section
While the debate shows may be able to be salvaged, it would need an entire rewrite of [debate shows] itself. While I think we should keep this around and work on it, the section above it on (the nature of the internet??) has to go in my opinion. This article is currently marked as violating WP:NOR and in a state that may nesseciate a complete rewrite (which we would like to avoid that - and tbh it's kind of what I have done inadvertently over the past 6 months (rewriting most things)). It is my opinion that this unsourced section is our largest of the remaining problems and our best solution is its removal. Tell me whatcha think if you see this, and thanks. Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 17:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)