[Debatewise RRT] Re: late debates (again)
- From: Harriet Lowe <tehexile@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:07:34 +0000
Hi! I have not been on Debatewise much due to NaNoWriMo (which i won - yay!)
and now I have job interviews and disgusting illnesses which are distracting
me, but I will try and get on Debatewise soon.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM, astha alang <astha_alang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Dear Alex,
>
> I am very sorry but I will not be able to do any debate till the 20th of
> December as I am travelling out of country for official work.
>
> Best,
> Astha
>
> ------------------------------
> From: alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Debatewise RRT] Re: late debates (again)
> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:57:06 +0000
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I agree with David here the main problem is time. Finding the 10 or so
> debates I send out on a Tuesday, doing enough research to have the
> introduction factually based and not open to criticism and finding links
> that provide good information from a diverse range of sources takes me about
> four hours which is a fair amount of time at the moment. Obviously if I add
> more then the time taken gets longer, this may well be fine after the
> Copenhagen conference is over. But is not going to work at the moment.
>
>
>
> It has become the case that I hand out the debates for people to do but
> this is not necessarily something that it needs to be me doing. I try to
> make the debates as diverse as possible but I know I put in too many
> politics and international affairs debates. In order to get round this we
> need others to contribute debates on culture, religion, local politics etc.
>
>
>
> So yes I agree that we may be in need of a change to the model of how we do
> things.
>
>
>
> The most obvious way is if we move to a more democratic way of creating
> rapid response team debates. I am sure that there are some of you who
> particularly like to ask questions and others who like to answer them so
> feel free to send out any debate topics of your own and others can take them
> up or help with them.
>
>
>
> Along with this I want to encourage is the taking of debates by more than
> one person with someone arguing for each side, which I was glad to see
> happened a fair bit this week.
>
>
>
> I could also spread out debates by changing the way I do things, at the
> moment I and others at HQ read various papers on a Tuesday to get the debate
> ideas and I then research them a little more. This could be changed to me
> reading one paper each day (a different one each day so as to overall still
> get a more rounded viewpoint) and then sending out a couple of topics each
> day.
>
>
>
> A possible second way of doing things is a radical change in the way we do
> things. I could put up all the debates and assign the RRT into teams who all
> then add to all the RRT debates which might prove an interesting change and
> allow people to add their views in their own time rather than having a
> scramble to grab a debate. It would also be much more in keeping with the
> original idea of Debatewise that there should be alot of people arguing
> their own case (rather than doing both sides) so as to get the best argument
> overall.
>
>
>
> This would however require more planning, how would I organise the teams?
> Is it right that I essentially restrict the side that people are arguing on
> when they could contribute to both? Would I need to ask for where you are on
> the political spectrum to decide what team you go on? Etc. etc.....
>
>
>
> If you have any more ideas feel free to send em out, it would be a nice
> touch if I create a debate on any ideas we have.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> *From:* debatewiserrt-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> debatewiserrt-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *David Crane
> *Sent:* 03 December 2009 10:23
> *To:* debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [Debatewise RRT] Re: late debates (again)
>
>
>
> Hi Lucien,
>
> There are two current problems we're facing (both of which we are delighted
> to have):
>
> 1) We've now got a large number of people on the list 100+, which means
> debates are taken quickly
> 2) We're all working very hard on our Copenhagen project (1,000 young
> people, 130 different countries, debating climate change with Google Wave)
> and that's taken our focus away from here a little.
>
> The solution is something we've wanted to do for a long while, which is to
> give you more responsibility over the debates we choose and the things we
> discuss. This our site - all of ours - and whilst there are certain things
> we think it's important to debate we'd love to know what you'd like to get
> your teeth into.
>
> So please suggest any ideas for debate you want. What are the burning
> issues you think people need help understanding? What are the key things
> you'd like to tell people about? What do you read in the paper and think -
> I want to know more about that?
>
> Please note: If you want to get a maximum of one email a day from the list
> let me know (off-list) and we'll put you on Archive.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> 2009/12/3 Lucienne Q. Senna <annlucien@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dear Alex,
>
> Either you have too few topics to debate or too many over-enthusiastic
> debaters who pounce on the debates before any of the rest of us get a
> chance. What are you going to do about this unfair practice as you are
> consistently representing a small minority of debaters' opinions?
>
>
>
> Lucien
>
> 2009/12/2 Alex Helling <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Sorry about sending out so few debates, I spent
> too long adding up the scores for debater of the month. We just get too many
> debates these days to do it quickly, which is of course a good thing! Even
> if it does mean more work for me. It will come as no surprise that Nadia and
> Sarah are the top two again, I make it that Nadia had 90 points to 88, so a
> close run thing, as I almost certainly missed some will Sarah call in the
> observers and demand a recount? I hope not as I don’t have the time! Also
> congratulations to Helen Doherty for coming in third.
>
>
>
> And to everyone else thanks for all your contributions as always,
>
>
>
> I promise to send out more debates on Friday/Saturday.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dubai debt crisis signals a further recession.*
>
> Dubai has been the fastest growing financial centre over the past decade,
> it has been a showcase to show oil rich countries how to deal with running
> out of oil. Dubai did this by moving into finance, making itself the centre
> of the Middle East. However Dubai world, the emirate’s biggest company is in
> crisis and its larger neighbour Abu Dhabi is having to bail Dubai out. As a
> financial centre, with a ruling family with investments all over the world
> the crisis may reach worldwide, hitting confidence that is still not good.
> This in turn could mean that the recovery stalls. So are we heading to a new
> financial crisis?
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/27/dubai-debt-crisis-will-it_n_372055.html
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KL01Dj04.html
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5AP1L120091127
>
>
>
> *Javier Solana has been a successful representative of Europe*
>
> Javier Solana has served Europe as the High Representative for Common
> Foreign and Security Policy for ten years. He represented Europe in areas of
> foreign policy where Europe had managed to agree to a common policy. He has
> been involved in negotiating numerous treaties for Europe but he has mostly
> been involved in the Middle East as Europe negotiates together as part of
> the Quartet on the issue of Israel/Palestine and has been working together
> with Germany, France and Great Britain to try to solve the nuclear crisis,
> and has so far not succeeded. So as he is about to be replaced by Cathy
> Ashton is his legacy good for Europe?
>
>
> http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/what-the-eu-can-learn-from-solana%27s-legacy/66524.aspx
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/08/javier-solana-eu-foreign-policy
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6695817/Catherine-Ashton-prepares-to-replace-Javier-Solana-as-EU-foreign-chief.html
>
>
>
> *Russia’s strong arm tactics have failed to quell militants*
>
> Russia’s tactics in its separatist regions are very brutal, its opponents
> are in turn brutal themselves. The Russians long ago declared that the war
> in Chechnya was over yet the separatists have still been involved in
> bombings since. On 28th October an express train between Moscow and St.
> Petersburg was derailed, investigators have blamed a bomb. Although no one
> has claimed responsibility the authorities are blaming Chechen and
> Ingushetian terrorists for the bombing. This shows that the Russian tactics
> may prevent open resistance but is breeding resentment that surfaces in
> continuing terrorist attack
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8383960.stm
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125938999092967765.html
>
> http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-7WF562?OpenDocument
>
>
>
> *Should Serena Williams have been suspended*
>
> Serena Williams’ outburst at a line judge in her semi final of the US open
> handed kim Clijsters the match as the decision was made to hand kim a point
> due to it being a second penalty. Now it has gone further and Williams has
> received a record fine for the offence. She did how ever get away without
> being suspended from playing tennis, should she have received this further
> penalty?
>
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/09/serena-williams-outburst-video-/comments/page/2/
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6832729.ece
>
>
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200909/mcenroe-serenas-outburst-was-fine
>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2009-11-30-serena-williams-open-fine_N.htm
>
>
>
> *Iran needs the economic reforms proposed by Ahmadinejad*
>
> Despite having some of the largest Oil and gas reserves in the world Iran’s
> economy is in dire straits. For example despite being a member of OPEC Iran
> imports refined fuels at a high price. This bill would phase out or reduce
> subsidies on food and fuel, immense costs to the state, which is clearly
> unsustainable. However there are worries that such a change could cause
> stagflation, the worst possible problem for an economy. So are these reforms
> helpful or not?
>
>
> http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_President_Proposes_Economic_Reform_Bill_To_MPs/1365014.html
>
>
> http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091112/FOREIGN/711119854/1002
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/03/iran_on_the_edge
>
>
> http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_MPs_Hand_President_Setback_On_Economic_Reform/1507619.html
>
>
>
> *Are Britons becoming lazy?*
>
> Britain is suffering an epidemic of laziness. The government is unable to
> tackle obesity and we spend longer and longer in front of the TV. However is
> this not how things were supposed to be, as we get richer there is less
> reason for us to work continuously, indeed in the 1930’s the economist John
> Maynard Keynes predicted we would be working a 15 hour week by 2030, so
> what’s wrong with a little laziness?
>
>
> http://www.politics.co.uk/news/health/britain-s-laziness-epidemic-$1317327.htm
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/10/nuffield-health-study-laziness
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/01/economics
>
>
>
> *Is the ‘war on terrorism’ winnable?*
>
> The war on terrorism that started after 9/11 is still ongoing, it goes
> through name changes but the core of the conflict remains the same, we are
> involved in a conflict against a nebulous group of terrorists. This is not a
> war in the conventional sense, nor is it winnable in the conventional sense.
> We win when there are no more terrorist attacks, even capturing Osama bin
> Laden no longer makes more than a symbolic difference. Previous conflicts
> have shown that terrorism can be won, for example the IRA gave up its guns
> and stopped bombing, but such examples are localised, a deal cant be reached
> with al Qaeda globally to make peace, so can it be won, or even end?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/19/alqaida.terrorism
>
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2602
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4820
>
>
>
> *Schools should have single sex classes to improve academic standards.*
>
> Even in co-educational schools more and more pupils are being taught in
> single sex classes. Both male and female students concentrate better in
> single sex classes so they should help push up academic standards. Parents
> are worried that girls in particular get distracted by the boys so wish to
> have single sex classes to prevent this, however the benefits are mainly for
> the boys. However are academic standards everything, surely it is a more
> rounded experience to be taught together, presumably not everyone benefits
> by being separated and schools may well not have the necessary resources to
> teach things separately – especially if this requires different styles of
> teaching.
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6938112.ece
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/25/schools.gender
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> Use Revisewise @ http://revisewise.debatewise.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lucien Quincy Senna
> 18 Iffley Turn
> Oxford OX4 4DU UK
> 01865772793
> 07556149763
>
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
> by anyone else is unauthorised.
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.debatewise.org
> 020 3393 7223 | 07956 292 567
> Wave: david23crane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ------------------------------
> Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find
> out how. <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/>
>
Other related posts:
