I figured this should be posted here instead of the Haunted Ballroom since it's not really an RP.
I caught a few episodes of Lewis Black's show "Root of all Evil" on Comedy Central, and I thought that it's a pretty brilliant show. So I think that it would be fun if we do something similar. I call it "The Lesser of Two Evils". In this game, we have two of us argue as a devil's advocate, in an attempt to pursuade the judge that one evil is not as bad as the other.
Obviously, this calls for some serious debating skills, but hey, we're furries on the internet. I think we can handle it.
Unlike Root of all Evil, we're not gonna argue evils that are laughable (Weed vs. Beer, Porn vs. YouTube, etc.), but instead hit some big ones that I'm sure would be a lot more interesting, such as Microsoft vs. Apple, Lawyers vs. Politicians, and so and and so forth.
And to make it even more interesting (and keep it open for everyone) let's have a panel of jurors to help the judge make a decision.
So what I need are volunteers!
I need at least two of you to volunteer to be advocates. These lucky people will argue for their side to pursuade the judge and jury that their chosen evil is not as bad as the other side. Whoever has the most compelling arguments (to be decided by the jury and judge) wins, and I'll keep a running tally of decisions. The advocates can be anyone who wants to argue for a certain side, but if more than one wants to argue for a certain side, then they can both be a team and work on it together, or decide by popular vote who gets to be that advocate. The advocates present their cases in three stages: opening statement, arguments, and closing statements.
For the jurors, I would just need any number of people who want to join in, though I want a list of people who want to do it before the arguments start. After the advocates make their closing statements, the jurors can then talk amongst themselves, and even ask questions of the advocates. The jurors need to come to at least a majority decision before handing the decision over to the judge.
Finally, the judge will weigh the arguments, and review the information presented by the jurors, and make a decision on which of the two is the lesser of two evils. Judges can be chosen by popular vote, or the person who comes up with a case.
So the order of posting would be:
Advocate 1's opening statement.
Advocate 2's opening statement.
Advocate 1's argument.
Advocate 2's argument.
Advocate 1's closing statement.
Advocate 2's closing statement.
Juror's deliberations, questions, and decision.
Judge's final decision.
Let's make the first case be The Lesser of Two Evils between Microsoft vs. Apple, and I'll be the first judge.
So. Who's interested?
Sign me up. Always willing to argue a point.
Or be argued at, for that matter.
I'm willing to be a juror. Sign me up for that.
I want to try this, but I'll be a juror for my first try.
i'm an arguing fool and will argue about anything any things i know now little about .
Hops on his soap box and taps a cane calls out
"Ladies and gentlemen.
hobo's and tramps.
Cross eyes mesquites and bow lagged ants.
i came before you to stand behind you and tell you a story i know nothing about. "
hohohooo....
I remember doing this in my junior high. I'll just spectate.
I'm interesteded, although I've had very little experience at debating, I'll try anyway.
I'll be a juror.