01 - The Shape-shifters Identity
So to start off the blog officially, I wanted the first of the posts to do a bit of educating on the shape-shifting part of my identity.
So, while it may be a bit easy to play off the shape-shifting aspects of my identity, I feel as though I can’t stress enough that it may not be what first comes to mind.
So first - what do shape-shifts mean for me?
Okay so, if you’ve heard of the term cameo-shift- great! But if not, essentially when it entails is that you’re experiencing shifts that don’t necessarily align with your actual species. So in my case for example, I’m a dragon, but an aspect of being a shape-shifter, at least in my case, is that I’ve gotten used to various cameo shifts, but they’re not exactly at random, nor are they of my choosing.
What does this mean?
My shifts usually seem to correlate to the times of year, as well as my emotions at times. So, given that the current season as of 2023/28/02 is late winter, coming around to spring, I’ve been experiencing more frequent canine-shifts, and this isn’t the first time this has happened in correlation to the season as well, so I’ve become accustomed that this happens around this time of year. But it’s important to note that these aren’t things I choose, and it can actually weight quite heavily on me mentally, because at times it does make me feel as though if I talk about it, I’ll seem less valid as a creature despite being unable to control it.
So what to take away from this?
As a shape-shifting creature, I experience shifts a bit differently at times, but this doesn’t make me any less valid as a creature, and for any shape-shifting creatures who may come across this, I want you to know that you are every bit as valid as the rest of the creatures, and you deserve to love yourself.
Note to readers: As my first blog, it’s not designed to be perfect, but instead designed to be informative for those who wish to be educated on what I have to educate on.
14 notes
·
View notes
A game for Arguing Topics
Logical Debate
Objective: To argue a given topic using logical reasoning and evidence to earn the most points.
Gameplay:
Preparation: Choose a topic to debate, such as "Should schools require uniforms?" or "Is social media more harmful than beneficial?" You can create a list of topics in advance or randomly select one before each round.
Players: Divide players into two teams, each with at least one participant. If there are an odd number of players, one person can act as a judge/moderator.
Round 1 - Opening Statements: Each team takes turns presenting their opening statement for the topic. The opening statement should include a clear and concise thesis statement, outlining the team's position on the topic, as well as a brief summary of the main points they will be making. Each team has 2-3 minutes to present their opening statement.
Round 2 - Cross-Examination: Each team can ask the other team questions about their opening statement, and vice versa. The goal is to challenge the opposing team's arguments and evidence, and to expose any weaknesses in their position. Each team has 2-3 minutes to cross-examine the other team.
Round 3 - Rebuttal: Each team takes turns responding to the other team's arguments and evidence, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their own position. The goal is to refute the opposing team's claims and to strengthen their own position. Each team has 3-4 minutes to present their rebuttal.
Round 4 - Final Statements: Each team presents their final statement, summarizing their position and highlighting their strongest arguments and evidence. Each team has 2-3 minutes to present their final statement.
Scoring: The judge/moderator scores each team based on the logical consistency and strength of their arguments, as well as the quality and relevance of their evidence. The team with the highest score wins the game.
Variations:
You can adjust the time limits for each round based on the number of players and the complexity of the topic.
You can allow players to consult reference materials (e.g. articles, research studies) during the game to support their arguments.
You can have players switch sides and argue the opposite position in a second round, to encourage flexibility and open-mindedness.
You can also add a bonus round where each team has to come up with a counterargument for their own position, to demonstrate their ability to consider multiple perspectives and anticipate potential objections.
To make the game more challenging, you can add a rule that players cannot repeat any arguments or evidence that have already been used by their own team or the opposing team.
You can also incorporate a visual element by having players create slides or presentations to accompany their arguments, which can include graphs, charts, or other visual aids.
To make the game more interactive and engaging, you can encourage players to ask questions or challenge each other's arguments throughout the game, rather than just during the designated cross-examination round.
Finally, you can make the game more collaborative by allowing players to work together within their own team to come up with the strongest arguments and evidence, rather than just relying on individual contributions. This can help foster teamwork and communication skills, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.
The judges in the game would need to establish clear criteria for how they will evaluate each team's arguments and evidence to assign points. Here are some possible criteria that judges could use:
Logical Consistency: Judges could evaluate how well each team's arguments follow a logical structure, including whether their premises support their conclusions, whether their arguments are internally consistent, and whether they avoid logical fallacies.
Relevance: Judges could evaluate the relevance of each team's evidence to the topic at hand, as well as how well they use that evidence to support their arguments. Evidence that is tangential or not directly related to the topic may not earn points.
Quality of Evidence: Judges could evaluate the quality and credibility of each team's evidence, including whether it comes from reputable sources, whether it has been peer-reviewed, and whether it is up-to-date and relevant.
Creativity: Judges could award points for original or creative arguments, or for innovative uses of evidence.
Persuasiveness: Judges could consider how effectively each team presents their arguments, including the clarity and concision of their language, the strength of their delivery, and the persuasiveness of their overall argument.
Responsiveness: Judges could evaluate how well each team responds to the arguments of the opposing team, including whether they address each point raised and whether they effectively refute or counter those arguments.
Clarity: Judges could evaluate how clearly each team presents their arguments and evidence, including the use of clear and concise language, and the ability to communicate complex ideas in a straightforward manner.
Use of Examples: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses examples to support their arguments and evidence, including the relevance and quality of those examples.
Use of Analogies: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses analogies to help explain complex concepts or to make their arguments more accessible to their audience.
Use of Humor: Judges could evaluate how effectively each team uses humor to engage their audience and make their arguments more memorable.
Ethos: Judges could evaluate the credibility and expertise of each team, including their ability to draw on their own experience or expertise to support their arguments.
Pathos: Judges could evaluate the emotional impact of each team's arguments, including their ability to evoke empathy, sympathy, or other emotions in their audience.
Audience Appeal: Judges could evaluate how well each team tailors their arguments and evidence to their audience, including their ability to use language and examples that resonate with their audience.
Context: Judges could consider the broader social, cultural, and historical context in which the topic is being debated, and evaluate how well each team takes that context into account in their arguments and evidence.
Use of Statistics: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses statistics to support their arguments and evidence, including the accuracy, relevance, and quality of those statistics.
Use of Quotes: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses quotes from experts, authorities, or other relevant sources to support their arguments and evidence, including the relevance and credibility of those quotes.
Use of Logic: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses logic and reasoning to support their arguments and evidence, including the validity and soundness of their reasoning.
Use of Metaphors: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses metaphors to help explain complex concepts or to make their arguments more vivid or memorable.
Use of Visuals: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses visuals, such as charts, graphs, or images, to help illustrate their arguments and evidence.
Use of Narrative: Judges could evaluate how well each team uses storytelling or other narrative techniques to help make their arguments more compelling and memorable.
Use of Counterarguments: Judges could evaluate how well each team anticipates and addresses potential counterarguments to their position, including the strength and effectiveness of their responses.
These are just a few possible criteria that judges could use to evaluate the arguments and evidence presented in the game. Ultimately, the specific criteria would depend on the goals and objectives of the game, as well as the preferences and expertise of the judges themselves.
4 notes
·
View notes