fandomhigh_ooc | OOC and IC: Friday Ethics Debate - Tara, Shep, Beka, Cameron, and Rory

Current Music: stomach rumbling

Entry tags:

classes

OOC and IC: Friday Ethics Debate - Tara, Shep, Beka, Cameron, and Rory

For convenience, I'm creating this post for us to OOC and IC hash out the debate stuff.

I'll place a link to either the Ethics classroom or Study Hall or the Perk or something for the IC stuff once we get going, to provide an IC chrono context for the discussions.

Tara-mun, you're included, in case we have OOC questions, but more until we get the sitch with Shep's ankle and his replacement, if any, straightened out.

I'll be AFK for an hour or so. Otherwise, jump on in. And whomever gets assigned in Shep's place - jump on in. I'll change the subject line to include you as soon as I know who you are. :D

As a reminder, this is the assignment:

First speaker, Affirmative - defines the key words, outlines the arguments his or her team will be making, and begins to address them.
First speaker, Opposition - briefly rebuts (disagrees with) the points 1A made, outlines their own team's arguments, begins to address them.
Second speaker, Affirmative - briefly rebuts 1O, gives the body of the team's argument.
Second speaker, Opposition - briefly rebuts 2A, gives the body of the team's argument.
Third speaker, Affirmative - rebuts all the arguments of the Opposition, in detail. May add one new argument if appropriate.
Third speaker, Opposition - rebuts all the arguments of the Affirmative, in detail. May not add any new points.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How 'bout I take the third slot and do clean up. Beka's been arguing with Angelus a lot, so she's got some experience at nuance.

Cam's the perfect foil for Beka's desire to narrow it down as much as possible (so she doesn't feel like a murderer).

We *need* to know who is going to take that other slot. I'll see if I can find Shep mun's e-mail and get permission, and I'll poke Tara-mun when Tara and Beka have 'breakfast Friday morning' (later today).

I don't know at this point. I feel like I'm in high school and let a school project get away from me and one of the people needed isn't even here. And my brain might possibly be going on a strike soon. *g*

OMG, I so know what you mean. It feels like an all-night cram session. ;) Take your brain on strike if you have to. I have to eat and do some work.

When I come back, I'll write up something OOC and then we can IC figure it out. Cool?

Alright. Enjoy your meal.

Back. Will attempt to make some sense of this now.

Is it alright if I let Cameron contact Tara? I don't think Sheppard's player is around at the moment and to be honest this is way too last minute to throw someone else in the debate.

Perfectly fine with me.

Okay, trying to sort this all out - how should Rory approach you guys? Are you still in Study Hall, theoretically?

We've been pretty chronofluid. Just now Beka said it was Thursday night in subtext - she was exaggerating, but not by much. So, let's call it Thursday late afternoon in study hall?

Gotcha. I'll have her walk up to you guys, then. :)

(Also, I started replying in the IC thread, and then changed my mind...but my computer is stupid, hence the stupid subject line above.)

We should OOC decide who is going to take which piece of this.

If I had to guess the other side's line up:

Phoebe
Parker
Angelus

What do you think?

I don't care where you throw me, though I think Angelus would pretty much flatten Rory. The other two she can handle just fine. :)

Beka argues with Angelus, or talks with him nearly daily. She's used to his thought-processes, and while he can trap her - often does - she's pretty agile at getting out of it. Problem is, if he's last, we have to outthink him in advance. Which is damned tough.

He's hella smarter than Beka, with all those years on her especially, but she gives him good game.

Maybe we should figure out who goes first and pick the second/third spots according to what they do? Just have the arguments worked out?

That works. I would really prefer to not go first, just because I'm still figuring it out.

OK. I think we can actually write up the first place stuff now. That should, according to Tara be the easiest spot. Maybe if we get this stuff hashed out OOC first, we can get the girls through it quick, have the first spot done and offer it to Cam-mun?

Works for me. I'm going to scan this again, because I'm still confused about what each part entails...

You and me both. I get the feeling there will be a lot of repetition in this thing.

So what do I do?

- state that all sentient beings have the desire to live and survive
- Offer the definition of murder
- point out that self defence and accidents do not fall under it
- deliberate murder and passion crimes are wrong

Do I add the note about euthanasia and the clearness of mind or do I leave that for you guys to work out when they use it as a counter argument?

Am going to sleep soon. When I get up, I'll write up everything we've got for you guys. She said not to worry, as the post would be open for at least 24 hours. We should take our time and not stress. :)

Here's what I just got from Tara-mun

First speaker: defines the argument. Introduces the team, briefly states the points each will be addressing. Makes the first argument - give an example if you can, don't just work in theory. Real life you'd expect 2 points, but for this I'd only expect 1.

So Cam will: Introduce everyone, state the position, define the terms - both 'murder' and 'any circumstance', give the first argument: murder is wrong b/c there is an essential value to life, with an example. *I think* Basic function here is to give an "intro paragraph" for a five paragraph essay, essentially.

Might need to break the arguments down more, and I'll be better prepared to do that in 6 hours or so. I'll just put it together with bullet points in a comment and you can copy and paste or modify at leisure.

Second speaker - brief rebuttal, which you make up on the spot. That is, goes straight into arguments. If it was an essay, this would be the body. 3-5 arguments usually in real life, I'd be happy with 2.

Make sure you draw it back to the topic, and watch out for the words 'regardless of circumstance'
your opposition will be trying to throw specific circumstances at you
best to anticipate those and debate them
(don't define them out of the argument e.g. unconsented euthanasia is not murder - just present an argument against it in the body)

Note1: we should anticipate assassination, euthanasia, other mercy-killings (ie, battlefield or when captured by a loathsome Magog), war.

Note2: This means we don't define self-defense out. Accidental death, maybe yes, b/c that lacks intention to kill.

Third speaker: can introduce one new point IF NECESSARY, but it's best not to plan on it. Only do it if something comes up in the course of their debate that needs to be seriously addressed. Basic function of third speaker is to listen to the body of the other side's arguments and rebut those specifically.

That'll be Beka's job, unless one of you would prefer it.

I'll get on writing up something coherent when I wake, but Tara-mun said to take our time with posting the debate, as the other thread will be *very* active.

*poke (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cameronmitchell/20255.html)*

Rocks. You are awesome. :) Now I'm going to sleep. Really.

Cool, I'll post this then?

Night!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OOC and IC: Friday Ethics Debate - Tara, Shep, Beka, Cameron, and Rory

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: OOC Hash out

Re: IC Hash Out

Re: IC Hash Out

Re: IC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out

Re: OOC Hash Out