Formal Debate - Challenges and Suggestions

[Kaizen]

It's time to have formal, one on one debates in SD. These debates will occur between two opposing individuals and the thread itself will be moderated. No one else will be able to post in the formal debate thread. A spectator thread, however, with a poll, will be setup to comment on the ensuing debate, and to vote on who is the respective winner.

The one on one debates cannot go longer than 10 posts per side. Formal debating must be incredibly civil, focusing on only the issues and not the debater. If anyone deviates from civil discourse in the one on one debates, the debate is over and the opposing party considered the winner.

For the first debates, I would like to see the following pairings and topics:

Kaizen vs. Ben: Ethics and Justice
GenocideAlive and The Hawaiian: The Proper Role of Government

This thread will be used to challenge other individuals and to suggest who you would like to see debate and what topic to discuss.

Post your challenges and suggestions here!
 

[Ben]

That sounds like a lot of fun. However we are doing formal debates I think we should also try to keep the quote-farming style that SD uses to a minimum in order to make those debates more readable for spectators.

Perhaps one person should make an opening statement of their ethical view, then the next should make an opening statement of their ethical view without it being a direct response, and then the first can respond, etc. I can't start tonight or tomorrow because I will be partying all night tonight, then at school tomorrow and partying all night tomorrow night, but Saturday would be good for me.
 

[GenocideAlive]

I had a similar idea, but I didn't want to get accused of usurping Neo's position or trying to flagrantly "act as a mod" after I'd already said I did not reliably possess the capacity. In that vein, I think it's a really good idea.

However, one of my biggest initial concerns for this was rules. Formal debates typically have "in-house" rules that can vary wildly from informal speak-easy type speech to moderated interruptions where someone making any claims that are false will be moderated and penalized. What would be our rulings? Simply whoever is the most convincing? This gave me a lot of problems, because without clear well-thought out rules, it will open a giant drama every time something is actioned.

Additionally, I had a few problems determining what penalties and varying degrees. If you make a remark that someone's position is foolish, would that be cause to close the debate? If they said someone's position is ridiculous? Are there to be post length limits? Acceptable digression? Formats? Time limits?

Perhaps I am overthinking this, but these are questions that I had when I was considering putting something like this together. We could certainly "play it by ear", but that seemed prohibitively open to complaining. I'm willing to go with it.

It's also worth noting that for each debate, there should be an "official" thread for the debate and a "discussion" thread. It'd be cool if we advertised in the other forums a little, too. Get some new people in on it, get the audience (and future participants) involved. That was outreach type stuff that's maybe best saved for later, but again, stuff I was thinking about with the concept of formal debates. I like the idea, I'm game. I'm not sure that the topic is the greatest, but I guess you gotta be fairly broad.
 

[The Hawaiian]

I like the idea but I think the voting part may become a bit silly. The concept of voting is rather arbitrary, whether we are talking about electing the leader of the free world (US president) or whether pepsi or coke is better. Most people are uninformed on the issues and can't be bothered to learn more about them, even when the information is freely available and right in front of their faces.
 

[Mike]

Didn't we do this a couple years back?
 

[Ben]

Originally Posted by The Hawaiian

I like the idea but I think the voting part may become a bit silly. The concept of voting is rather arbitrary, whether we are talking about electing the leader of the free world (US president) or whether pepsi or coke is better. Most people are uninformed on the issues and can't be bothered to learn more about them, even when the information is freely available and right in front of their faces.

The voting is a way to get people involved and allow them to express their opinion even if they don't want to actually go to the trouble of being in the debate. It's not like it has any real consequences, and encourages people to become more interested/involved in SD.
 

[Ace]

Chaos vs. Kaizen/Ben: Foreign Policies
 

[The Hawaiian]

Originally Posted by Ben

The voting is a way to get people involved and allow them to express their opinion even if they don't want to actually go to the trouble of being in the debate. It's not like it has any real consequences, and encourages people to become more interested/involved in SD.

I'm just saying that whoever is "voted" as the winner often is not the winner. Like Ron Paul for instance, who lost the primaries but won pretty much every debate.
 

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by Ben

That sounds like a lot of fun. However we are doing formal debates I think we should also try to keep the quote-farming style that SD uses to a minimum in order to make those debates more readable for spectators.

Perhaps one person should make an opening statement of their ethical view, then the next should make an opening statement of their ethical view without it being a direct response, and then the first can respond, etc. I can't start tonight or tomorrow because I will be partying all night tonight, then at school tomorrow and partying all night tomorrow night, but Saturday would be good for me.

Haha okay that sounds good.

I will in the meantime create the thread and present my views on ethics/justice (give my definitions as well) and then you can post on Saturday.

Originally Posted by GenocideAlive

However, one of my biggest initial concerns for this was rules. Formal debates typically have "in-house" rules that can vary wildly from informal speak-easy type speech to moderated interruptions where someone making any claims that are false will be moderated and penalized. What would be our rulings? Simply whoever is the most convincing? This gave me a lot of problems, because without clear well-thought out rules, it will open a giant drama every time something is actioned.

Yeah I know what you mean. The way I see it this will be regulated two ways:

1. Moderator will simply use his best judgement. I think Neo would be good at this, we may not need to make it anymore complicated.
2. The spectator thread will also be expressing "popular justice" by people giving their opinions on the tactics of the debators. I think if someone does a flagrant violation, he'd be quite exposed to criticism in the spectator thread.

Originally Posted by GenocideAlive

Additionally, I had a few problems determining what penalties and varying degrees. If you make a remark that someone's position is foolish, would that be cause to close the debate? If they said someone's position is ridiculous? Are there to be post length limits? Acceptable digression? Formats? Time limits?

Perhaps I am overthinking this, but these are questions that I had when I was considering putting something like this together. We could certainly "play it by ear", but that seemed prohibitively open to complaining. I'm willing to go with it.

I think we're all mature enough to give this some lee-way and correct it accordingly as problems arise. As mentioned, there a few natural measures that will keep things in line.

Originally Posted by The Hawaiian

The voting is a way to get people involved and allow them to express their opinion even if they don't want to actually go to the trouble of being in the debate. It's not like it has any real consequences, and encourages people to become more interested/involved in SD.

I thought of this too, but I think the popular opinion being in question would also provide interested debates in the spectator thread. For instance, I doubt I'll hold popular opinion in much of my debates, but it will serve as a good way to get people to discuss my opposing views in the spectator thread even though I may not be winning the vote.

Originally Posted by Ben

The voting is a way to get people involved and allow them to express their opinion even if they don't want to actually go to the trouble of being in the debate. It's not like it has any real consequences, and encourages people to become more interested/involved in SD.

I think this is the true power of this. So many would likely get involved and it would provide some great enjoyment in SD again.

Originally Posted by Ace

Chaos vs. Kaizen/Ben: Foreign Policies

Golgo is also an option on this one. I think that would be a great debate.

Originally Posted by The Hawaiian

I'm just saying that whoever is "voted" as the winner often is not the winner. Like Ron Paul for instance, who lost the primaries but won pretty much every debate.

That's true but the reason why Ron Paul is so exciting is because he's completely against the grain. I think ideas being at odds with the general opinion will provide very interesting debates.

DE and GA: So you're interested in doing it? Maybe a different topic perhaps?
 

[CajunMan]

I'm interested in giving this a twirl and I'll tackle any topic.
 

[WindowlessHouse]

Two debaters with a peanut gallery...sounds like the Ancient Greeks. It's a great idea.

I'm looking forward to following the debate between Kaizen and Ben.
 

[The Hawaiian]

I'd like to focus on just marijuana for our topic if thats possible, or the war on drugs in general.
 

[Kaizen]

I've started the first thread between Ben and myself. Feel free to discuss in the spectating thread.

DE: If GA agrees, one of you start a thread with the same titling I have and decide how to start it off. Mine and Ben's thread starts off with both expressing our views, then I'll address him after he posts his. You guys can decide how to start it.

Anyone want to challenge Cajun? What topics interest you, Cajun?
 

[KP]

After the first few rounds of debate I'd like to propose an even wilder debate idea. Take two people and don't let them know what the topic is. Pick some sort of hot-topic and then decide which side they are going to debate (think debate club from highschool you don't always get to defend the side you believe in.)

Then make it a 3 post format. Opening, 2, Rebuttal

Or if you'd like a 6 post format. Opening (rebuttal) 2nd post (rebuttal) Closing (rebuttal)

I think keeping it short and sweet allows for this to continue and for people to spend more time coming up with solid material and really trimming it down to - for lack of a better word - a digestible amount that almost all participants can read through relatively quickly and then vote on the winner for and provide critique as well.

Not saying for right away but if this takes off it would make for some fun debates. I'd like to get someone pro weed arguing against it for example... or pro life arguing for abortion...
 

[Ace]

I'd like to get someone pro weed arguing against it for example...

i think i could do that. against someone arguing pro-weed?