What is the "four positions" setting?

What do OG, OO, CO, and CG mean?

Mharman: Opening Government, opening opposition, closing government and closing opposition.

You're doing a British Parliamentary debate.

Basically government is pro. You work in a team but you're expected to make separate and distinct arguments. Only one debater wins.

nzlockie: In a British parliamentary sense, what do closing and opening mean?

Mharman: It tells you who goes first. (Opening)

nzlockie: I don't like how there are teams but one team member is still going to lose.

Mharman: Bro, it's not really a team debate. Edeb8 HAS team debates. That's something different.

This is British Parl style. You are one person working the same argument with another "team" member, but you make separate arguments. Think of it like there are two debates going on at the same time with the same resolution.
The only way that the two halves are related is that the Opening team has to define the resolution and the closing team has to sum up BOTH side's arguments.

Judges should be cognisant of the specific roles each member is supposed to fulfill, (Which they never are on the internet) they'll decide which side ultimately won, but more importantly which individual speaker scored the highest, based on the roles they were supposed to perform.
It's true that certain positions are harder to score from - especially on the internet where people don't really appreciate what it's like to participate in this style of debate; but, you know, it was never really about the ELO right?

I don't really like this style of debate myself, but whatever. Generally on Edeb8, when people participate in this style, I suspect what they were really looking for was a Team Debate. They probably should have just done that.
You could always specify that you're wanting to be judged as if it were just a Team Debate, but ultimately the Judges will only be allowed to choose an individual as the winner.

You can see an example of this debate done here on Edeb8 here: http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-27

This was a 2 round debate.Each half completes ALL of their rounds before the debate moves on to the second Half faction.
A BP debate really needs to be at least 2 rounds in order to give OG a chance of winning.

I'm by no means an expert at this style, but my understanding is that it basically goes like this:

OG: Set the definitions, make first constructive case.
OO: Affirm/Contest the definitions, make first constructive case and respond to OG's case.
OG: Rebut OO, Defend case, mini summation.
OO: Rebut OG. Defend case, mini summation.
CG: Respond to BOTH of the opening sides. Introduce a new constructive argument.
CO: Affirm/Contest CG's assessment of the opening rounds. Introduce a new constructive. Rebut CG.
CG: Rebut CO. Defend case (bare minimum of new info added). Sum up ENTIRE Government position.
CO: Rebut CG and defend case, (NO new info added) Sum up ENTIRE Opposition position.


Generally in practice the Opening sides have the easiest job. CO is probably the hardest to win from in an Internet debate site situation, since they only get one chance to introduce new material and not much room/time to do it in. Often they'll do a straight Neg, but it's hard to score from that.

Hope this helps!

nzlockie: Not what I mean. I'm talking about how you click "4 positions", but it's really only two positions being debated by four people. I'm taking issue with the fact the British Parliamentary Debate exists, I just take issue with the fact that we don't have a true four positions debate.

Mharman: CORRECTION: I'm not taking issue with the fact that British Parliamentary Debate exits.

The first time I typed it it was a typo.

Hmmm. Ok. Well I know that BP Debates are here because they were specifically asked for. So are team debates.

I've never heard of a formal debate style that has four separate positions on a resolution, but I guess that's no harm in you asking for it. You should add it to the feature request list.

It sounded to me like you wanted a team debate. Where you could have four (or more) people divided into two teams arguing one resolution.

In that style, the judges award points to the winning team.
Theta no restriction to the number of members in a team, and you can dictate your own internal order of speaking, but you can only ever have two teams debating.

nzlockie: I should.

Mharman: If you want to, there's no reason why the BP system couldn't be used for 4 positions, as long as this was explained in the additional rules for the debate.