[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy Can I also suggest that if the posts are being posted by the moderators that the thread be closed so no one else can post.

That's a great idea. I had thought about asking for that, but figured it might be too much of an administrative burden.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Dies Irae I would find it preferable not to have a moderator checking each post before it is allowed to be added.

Again, my suggestion for you is just stick to debating things on the open forums. Or if you want to bypass the moderator, just do so, and trust your oponent won't read the thread until she posts.

I have given it some thought, and I simply can't imagine any reason why it would hurt for a moderator to read an argument before it is posted. The only possible way it could bias the debate is if the moderator:

a] changed your argument - in which case you would immediately know and could cry foul

-or-

b] forwarded your argument to your opponent to give them the upper hand.

I simply don't see any of the moderators here being that conspiratorial, especially not BNS. And even if they were, its not like there's anything on the line. Its just for fun.

[Dies Irae]

I didn't mean to suggest I thought the moderators would do either. I'm sure that bns and anyone else who wants to moderate the debates will do absolutely fine. I simply thought it was unneeded, which is why I'd have found it preferable otherwise, but I do recognise the difficulty of working it any other way.

I will admit to speaking before I'd thought enough about it with my original objection. My thought was based too much on the open forums, whereas this is quite a different idea.

As you say, it's just for fun. The only other ways I can imagine doing it other than the suggested one would be a pain in the arse to implement anyway.

[bns]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy Can I also suggest that if the posts are being posted by the moderators that the thread be closed so no one else can post.

I'm a step ahead of you.

[mmccarthy]

[bns]

Go ahead and be thinking about ideas for debate topics. I guess this thread is as good a place as any to post them.

Should we pick a topic and then ask for volunteers to debate, or should we get volunteers and then decide on a topic? What do you think?

[javaJake]

I suggest abortion as a topic.

Here's where the real trouble begins: what if someone wants to join in the debate, and thinks they can argue fairly persuasively? Once the two members are chosen, are they the only ones that may argue?

I suggest a sort of sign-up process. There would be three threads for one debate: (*) Debate itself (*) Informal discussion about it (*) Signup thread. The signup thread allows users to sign up by providing a decent argument verses the other debate.

Then the dilemma for a moderator exists. If there is only one moderator deciding whether or not someone is allowed to debate, there could be bias and issues. Instead, I think there should be a moderator for each side of the debate. There may be a third that accepts each "round", and posts them, but that may be unnecessary.


Edit: OK, true, it's better to leave it restricted.

Now for the general rules of posting:
1. A debate must be started by the mods, with a summary, maybe a description, a list of members participating on each side, and each side's initial argument.
2. An argument must quote the exact point it is arguing.
3. They be easy to understand, and be as concise as possible. (A moderator may not disallow a post based on this rule, however, unless you can be very specific.)
4. When one side gives in, or both moderators agree the discussion to have gone as far as possible, each side must fully describe how they've changed their ideas/beliefs about the topic (if they have at all). These descriptions must be posted at the top of the thread, and the thread must be marked as closed.


What do you think?

[mmccarthy]

For a subject like abortion it would probably be appropriate to have teams of 2 people for either side of the argument.

The debate I think should be restricted to these teams which would have to be decided beforehand. Otherwise its just another thread. The thread debate is closed to posting and only a moderator or admin can add the posts. The posts for each side should be forwarded by PM to whichever mod or admin is moding the debate. Opening arguments or rebuttals can only be posted when all parties have forwarded them to the mod so no advantage is given.

I don't think any more formal structure should be imposed for the moment although this can be refined over the first few debates as issues may arise.

I think after one or two rebuttals, then a closing argument from either side with bulleted list of the main points of their argument.

The separate discussion thread can be the form for other members to decide who has won the debate. Perhaps a poll added to the thread to that effect.

Always remember with debates that the winner is not always right. The winner is the one to provide the best argument. Some of the best debaters I've seen have won arguments based on the opposite of their personal views.

One experiment I would like to try eventually is to get two members to volunteer to a blind debate. The subject of which and the sides taken are picked by other members after the fact. This is not intended to put anyone in an uncomfortable position but rather to experiment with creating arguments for a debate which don't particularly reflect your personal views but convince the other members that it does.