Issue-based EyeDebates? (was: Issue-based battles?)

[syzygy]

An idea I came up with while musing over the politics in Vjing thread and the dicussion of VJ battles...

How about a battle between two VJs who come at a particular issue from different sides, each using their skills to present their side of the argument.

Like a debate, but with video rather than speech.

Like a debate, it would be about exploring the issue, so the people taking part wouldn't neccessarily have to hold the view that they are presenting (providing they are capable of seeing the value in debate)

E.g.

* I present the arguments for more control over immigration
* You present the arguments for more free movement of people

* I show why science has made the world a better place
* You show how science has messed the world up

* I show why graffiti is vandalism
* You show why graffiti is art


I think live audio visual performance could be a powerful way to explore issues - there are all sorts of possibilities to use emotional triggers, statistics, quotes, real-world footage, etc etc etc to make points.

I would love to see two VJs responding to the video arguments that each other are presenting.

Anybody want to take me on at AVIT UK 2004? Name your issue, choose your weapons and let battle commence ;)

Dan.

[holly]

Velcro vs Zippers! I'll have you by the third round!
:P ;)

Great idea!

[PeterRubin]

1) I think it's a great idea as well, Dan.
2) I'd love to take you on.
2a) But I would like to take the positive side of the issue, if that's OK with you.
3) However, having said the above, there's a caveat which I'm sure is going to cause a lot of groans and, believe me, this is not easy for me to say:

Isn't it possible to frame this idea under a title other than "battle"? Couldn't you create a generic title that could then be used at other venues/events in the future as well?

I realize "battle" has a lot more commercial appeal than "debate", but there are other phrases that are peppy enough that could be more specific to the idea without bringing the whole VJ competition concept back to the forefront.

For example (and this is only off the top of my head at the moment), it could be billed as "AVIT UK presents Global Confrontation". Then you could just list the specific areas to be covered, with "pro" and "con" before or after the names of those participating.

That way, the confrontation is placed upon the issue and not the personalities involved.

Personally, I would love to be a part of this but feel I couldn't participate if it was billed as a battle between you and me. That just doesn't feel right to me.

One of the basic tenets of VMP is that competition is replaced by cooperation. Of course, I realize that a debate implies competitive stances, but in this instance, the nature of the debate on both sides actually represents positions which imply a desire to improve the conditions in this world.

[SilentEclipse]

This sounds interesting...I like the immigration issue one..and of course I would have to be pro...but could you really convince anyone that its a bad idea?? I'd like to see you try...:jump2:

Maybe it could be called a Vj slam instead, or a face off or something more tv related.

[elbows]

Marvelous idea :)

My cheesy suggestion for a name is EyeDebate

[syzygy]

yes, this really has a lot more in common with a debate than a battle, so a name in that direction would be more appropriate.

interesting that Peter sees the issues as having a positive and a negative side - my experience of good debates is that everyone end up realising that both sides have positives and negatives... we shall see ;)

regarding a debate being competitive... ideally, I would see such a video debate being more like an intelligent dicussion, where each person is arguing from a particular angle, but the result is not so much adversarial as exploratory.

I like the idea of velcro vs zippers as well Holly! Not all debates need to be about heavy political issues.


Dan.

[BrainStove]

I really find this like a very good & interesting idea, my 100% support to the EyeDebate approach.
However it shouldn?t has to be a silent visuals "contrapunto" since so far nobody has said anything about background music & sound to ornament the VisualMix.

Hehehe yeah, I see this like an splendid opportunity to find some DJs willing to sweat his way to sync follow the visuals with their music for a nice swapping roles change in the parade. :up:

[syzygy]

I like the idea of a DJ responding to the ebb and flow of the EyeDebate with appropriate music, providing a common element between the cases being made by the VJs.

Dan.

[PeterRubin]

interesting that Peter sees the issues as having a positive and a negative side - my experience of good debates is that everyone end up realising that both sides have positives and negatives... we shall see
* I present the arguments for more control over immigration[
* You present the arguments for more free movement of people
* I show why science has made the world a better place
* You show how science has messed the world up
* I show why graffiti is vandalism
* You show why graffiti is art

Where I can see both a pro or con approach having both positive and negative sides on each side of the immigration issue, it's hard for me to see a positive side on how science has messed the world up or the positive side of why graffiti is vandalism.

regarding a debate being competitive... ideally, I would see such a video debate being more like an intelligent discussion, where each person is arguing from a particular angle, but the result is not so much adversarial as exploratory.

Totally agree. I would love it that way. Only reason I called it competitive is because, "normal" public debates are extremely competitive. Intelligent discussion is a far different thing than your usual organized debates.

[charlielangridge]

Originally posted by PeterRubin
it's hard for me to see a positive side on how science has messed the world up

http://www.eslkidstuff.com/images/medicine.gif (in the medicinal use) VS http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/nuke.jpg - theres a bit on science

[sleepytom]

a better example is the use of x-rays and nukes as they are simular bits of science. Or genitic research that is providing good reliable cheap cancer drugs Vs GM food that is risking poluting the wider environment with unknow hybred mutent weeds for no reason other than to increase profits.

graf can be vandalisum - eg tagging an bus timetable makes it impossable for people to know when the bus is due.

feel that this is an extreamly challanging idea and will require serious amounts of preperation to take part.

the audio is the main question i have - so much of the mood can be set by musical tone that is the VJs are not makeing the music as well it will be extreamlly hard to controll the feeling convayed. - also will the use of audiovisual samples be allowed?

[syzygy]

AV samples would work great in this context I think.


You're definitely right about preparation being required. If this is going to happen, the VJs presenting each side of each issue will need to have maximal preparation time before the event.


I'd see each EyeDebate being relatively short, in order to keep things fast moving and high-impact - nothing worse than a drawn out ciurcular argument ;)

As for the music I hear you there too - music does carry a lot of mood.

Maybe the EyeDebate should be done on top of a pre-chosen piece of music that both Vjs have already heard? (it could be kept relatively minimal in order to allow AV samples full scope)

Let's evolve some 'rules' to do this, but let's not make it too much a game by having too many rules - providing the two VJs (or sets of VJs) involved agree on how their EyeDebate should be conducted, there doesn't need to be anything set in stone.

Dan.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by charlielangridge
http://www.eslkidstuff.com/images/medicine.gif (in the medicinal use) VS http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/nuke.jpg - theres a bit on science


I think Peter meant that, while there is a case that science has messed the world up, it is not a particularly cheerful case to make - he would rather show the good side rather than the bad.

I think I see what you mean now Peter - I originally though you meant that one side of the debate was intinsicly better more more right than the other.

Perhaps a positive way to tackle that side of the issue would be to show how nice the world is when science isn't involved - how happy people can be when they are not lumbered with the fetishes (the object kind, not the sexual kind ) that science forces upon us.

The more I think about EyeDebates, the more I want to do one - I think it could really force me to think creatively about the issue and how to use visuals to present a case to the audience.

Which issue takes your fancy, Peter?

Dan.

[alangeering]

This is a very interesting proposal and one I totally agree with. EyeDebates could be collaboration between 2 groups of people (as well as individuals) as the research and preparation required is huge. (I lived with a competitive debater for a year, preparation is the key).

Agree with the idea of inteligent discussion, but I don't agree that this requires a non-competitive style. From what I've seen people who are competing are motivated towards better preparation, and that can only mean a better presentation of arguements for people to watch or hear. The intelegence requirement is then on the part of the audience to decide what they think.

If you want a challenge, then take up a point of view you don't agree with, research it, present it. You can learn a lot from this (even if it doesn't change your beliefs/opinions, usually strenthens them overall).

I probably won't have time to prepare an EyeDebate, but I can research for one if anyone want's a hand.

Thanks,
Alan

[littlecatalyst]

love it!!

just some thoughts:
would be great to have funny debates alongside the serious ones (aside from velcro/zippers we can also have referential stuff like stting vs standing....)

AVclips might have an unfair advantage over non AVteams/individuals

musically, if the sets are shorter ones, there is less need for a dj, each contestant can bring with them music that they want to play to.

if it is a contest environment,with winners, i would also like to throw something in regarding judging. Personally, i don't really like the applause-o-meter style of determining a winner, i much prefere the boxing style of judging (marking points for predetermined things, though we wouldnt have direct hits and body blows, but argument style, content, form, how many examples per set.... clarity of argument... aesthetics, direct points....) three judges could tally the points for each round of each debate and then announce the winners (we should make a big belt for this!)

[syzygy]

I'm not even sure whether there needs to be a judged winner - everyone will have their own idea about who presented the strongest case, so declaring a winner seems a bit artificial.

Why not leave each member of the audience to make their own mind up?

But, as I said, I don't think there needs to be a single set of rules - each pair of eyedebaters can agree their own structure if they like.

Personally, I would prefer a less structured, less overtly competitve system, with the sides making their cases with passion but ultimatley for the purpose of exploring the topic rather than 'winning' but I can see why others would prefer something different.

Dan.

[sleepytom]

my prefered format for this kind of thing would be short 10 min sets in a back to back format with all audio to be supplied by the VJs

i'm tempted to sugest thurther rules limmiting the amount of spoken word audio or onscreen text but there is no point doing this - it should surfice to say the pieces should be VJ in style

i feel that judging of any kind is pretty pointless - people will make up there own minds about stuff

[fRED]

very nice idea, its a good training camp for vj's/vma's to exercise their ability in "talking with pictures". and thats for me the intresting point in an EyeDebate. i dont need to rub my balls with a big belt, standing over the ones i flickered into ground.

i like what syzygy wrote, take it as a principle and not as a set of rules you have to follow.

take it as something for your personal development, and not as another stupid form of entertaiment.

[disassembler]

Originally posted by littlecatalyst
love it!!

just some thoughts:
would be great to have funny debates alongside the serious ones (aside from velcro/zippers we can also have referential stuff like stting vs standing....)



:yep:

Sitting vs standing. My mind is going off. How fun. Can you imagine how funny that shit would be.

Battle or not, standing vs. sitting, velcro vs zippers, are hot content for a Set.

Like tacs under butts when you go to sit down. Woopie cushions.
Saw this video where this couple are kissing and the guy pick his lady up and sits her down on the stove. HA! the burner is still on.

Could have a mock break battle style video set for zippers and velco. HAHAHA! People doing freestyle zipping and velcroing.

Moonwalking zippering. Pop and lock velcro masta's
:jump2:

[holly]

Originally posted by sleepytom
i feel that judging of any kind is pretty pointless - people will make up there own minds about stuff
I agree. A "winner" is really beside the point. I can see Lil'Cat's use of points ( I think points is actually a part of debate, but it's been a hundred years since I took anything like that in school...). It's a little more like goals, like Tom's "no use of blatant text" - it would be a little disappointing if SCIENCE=BAD were just blinked on and off for 10 minutes.

It would actually be cool if the audience didn't always know what the subject was about and they just had to gleen it from the visuals.... Definately an opportunity to put hard "political" issues next to soft frivolous topics. Mix it up. Make the serious more profound and the light more entertaining.

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by holly
It would actually be cool if the audience didn't always know what the subject was about and they just had to gleen it from the visuals.... Definately an opportunity to put hard "political" issues next to soft frivolous topics. Mix it up. Make the serious more profound and the light more entertaining.

omg thats great! totally blends the serious with the frivolous (and probably make the serious less serious). plus for the audience, it'll be a more (want to use the word surreal, but afraid to) evening as opposed to "And now, debating 'babies r cute vs. overpopulation' vj's...." in between each mini set..

the points, were just as this started off as a battle, and they seem to have winners even when they are tongue in cheek, and those battles ought to have points instead of aplausemeters. but i'm all for no winners/losers. there's enuf competition in the rest of clubland...

[PeterRubin]

Dan: I think Peter meant that, while there is a case that science has messed the world up, it is not a particularly cheerful case to make - he would rather show the good side rather than the bad.
You must realize that I take the above stance not out of any moral position that I might have. Rather, it has everything to do with the effectiveness of the debate itself. The more I think about this, the more I like it because it?s got some very cute little hidden tricks built into this concept. In fact, it?s a helluva lot trickier than it seems on the surface.
Tom: A better example is the use of x-rays and nukes as they are similar bits of science. Or genetic research that is providing good reliable cheap cancer drugs Vs GM food that is risking polluting the wider environment with unknown hybrid mutant weeds for no reason other than to increase profits.
As far as I see it, that?s not exactly how I see this working to its maximum effect.

You could structure it that way but, in doing so, you always have to have one of the sides being totally negative. For example, as regards GM food, the pro side would say GM could save millions of people from starving and thus show people being fed. The con side would have to start dealing with the potential for catastrophic mistakes or accidents. The only positive element the con side could possibly show are a lots of healthy growing fields. But that would not counter the pro?s position because the pro doesn?t see any problem with healthy growing fields of GM crops. So, to be effective, within this structure, one side would inevitably have to stay on a completely negative course.

The trick is to have BOTH sides giving the positive side of their position, trying to sell their individual point of view to an audience which sees benefit in both points of view.

For example on the graffiti subject, one side could have art and culture as a positive; the other side would have clean trains, buildings, city streets, etc. as their position. This latter side could argue order over disorder in society, while the art/culture side could argue independent thought and expression by the people lead to a happy and mentally healthier society (oral/anal, if you will).

Also, you don?t want to pick a topic that most people on the left agree on (since most in the video mix scene ? dare I say - are on the left). For example, keeping with graffiti, unless I?m mistaken, virtually all who watch would inevitably lean towards the art and culture side, no matter the position of the clean buildings debater. So, the anal side (if you will) would have a disadvantage coming in, due to the predisposed psychological point of view of the audience.

Another consideration: Once you?re able to balance a subject that has equal appeal on both sides for the audience, then you?ve got to figure out a topic wherein both sides have an equal opportunity as regards the excitement of the visuals to be screened.

For example, in the graffiti example, you could do a million things with graffiti art and culture. As for clean buildings, trains, etc. if you do a fancy montage of buildings, trains etc., it might look great but such a montage steers itself away from the original anti-graffiti position and becomes more like a fancy art piece. The available visual resources for the art/culture side would give that side a wider advantage going into the preparation for the debate.

The idea must be to give both participants equal opportunity as regards public perception and possibility for acceptance, as well as equal opportunity for exciting visual material that supports either side.

To say the least, this is not as easy as it all sounded when the idea was first presented.

Having said the above, it certainly IS possible to find such balances in science, technology and other areas, but it has to be approached with quite a bit of care. It means that both sides have to talk to each other before anyone starts accumulating material, so there is an understanding that both sides have equal opportunities in the event. If the right subjects, formulas and positions are taken, however, it could be (as I said) a helluva debate.

As far as the fun and games part of it (Velcro v. zippers, et al.), all the above makes no difference at all. But it makes all the difference in the world for the serious side. Which is a reason I wouldn?t stagger serious with fun and games. If you want both, I would think it better to have the serious debates and the fun and games together as separate units, one section following the other. The serious part is going to have to be very subtle and, if stuck back and forth between fun and games, the concentration needed for the subtle differentiation between the two sides will be compromised. Also, by sticking the fun and games all throughout the serious parts, it basically trivializes the serious parts which have taken a helluva lot longer to figure out than goofyville.

My 2 sense.

As for you and me, Dan baby, as I said, I?m all for it, but we have to figure out a bunch of things before we actually decide on what we want to do. This is not just about picking a subject and then let?s go. Having said that, once we agree on a way to start, throw all you got at me, brother!!!
;^))))))

PS (and this is a big PS): If the past political discussion that we just had on the Forums could produce an energy and a desire for something of this quality, it just goes to show you what this community is capable of creating with meaningful discussion and inspiration (i.e. VMP advertisement). Which is another reason I don?t want to see this trivialized by the fun and games aspect of it.

[alangeering]

Part of the fun of debate...

...is that you're given a proposition (say "graffiti is public art") and the two sides (proposition and opposition) have to interpret the title/motion and come up with thier statements.

Prop may decide to play it straight and go for graffiti montage etc.

but they don't have to

they could play it however they choose

the whole video piece could be about the nature of the 'artist', comparing and contrasting motivation & life of a graffiti artist and, say, Jackson Pollock.

Opposing the motion could be equally fun. Creativity, thought and good presentation can be demonstrated even if you find a position hard to argue (or don't agree with it).

(Second guessing what the other VJ will do and preparing a reaction can also increase the fun)

Alan

[BrainStove]

Since without any doubt this will require huge ammounts of time to build/prepare a minimaly decent "Strong & Worthly" visual speech amongst all the contenders beforehand, it?ll be necessary to throw and set consensus ASAP about few concrete Ideas/Themes to start up from the ground if we really want the EyeDebates proposal becomes a reality for AvitUK04.
There been already suggested Immigration, science, graffiti, sitting/standing, zippers/velcro as possible candidates, but it?s also needed to stablish which will be the definitive ones, which side of the Pro/Con fence the possible participants will align with, etc.
Because it?s obvious we?ll need the same ammount of participants on each side of the discussion in every debate, it?s also obvious the need for a List, Poll or something to pick the topic/side you would want develop, so time is gold pals seems to me like there is no so much time left to organize the thing properly.

Launching another random ideas in order to help a bit from the distance, I?d also suggest due the heated, accellerated, energetic nature most debates use to have (specially in around 10min visual sets), I?d say preselected fast D&B songs (Squarepusher, MuZiq, etc) choosed in advance like kinda audio Bgd beds upon which everyone would mount their individual discourses for each themed debate would help a lot to encourage people to participate easier, since that way they only would have to focus into the visual editing, rhythm, style part of their own visual speech and with the certainty the opponent wouldn?t have any edge advantage by choosing a possible spicier/stronger audio stunt trickery to reinforce their points. Of course could be an specific A/V category of debates where any participant is free to chose whatever music, audio, imagery they like to contend against an equal A/V counterpart on behalf of fairness.

Well those are my ideas at the moment... and by the way I?d also propose "Visual Counterpoint" as another choice to "EyeDebate" as the title of the project, since Eyedebate sounds to me a little bit too much "formal", maybe Visual Counterpoint, Visual Contrapunto or Visual Joropo will sound a bit more "swampy underground" Hehehe. :up: