Forum Debate

[Raider5678]

We should bring back monthly debates, I personally feel like that'd be a lot of fun.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What kind of format and topics are you thinking of? We did indeed have debates years ago, but scheduling them, picking a good format, and getting participants is a fair amount of work, and the right format is important to make the debates work.

[Raider5678]

42 minutes ago, Cap'n Refsmmat said:

What kind of format and topics are you thinking of? We did indeed have debates years ago, but scheduling them, picking a good format, and getting participants is a fair amount of work, and the right format is important to make the debates work.

 

By format do you mean rules?

 

As for topics, in my opinion, we should avoid topics that are not ever going to be conclusive(I.E. something we wouldn't be able to determine a winner because both sides typically have good points).

So here are some of my own personal ideas:

• Should we colonize Venus instead of Mars?(This has been debated quite a bit from what I've seen, however mars usually wins. So maybe not the best topic.)
• Should genetic engineering for cosmetics be banned?
• Should governments make avoiding debt a priority or should they simply have a debt ceiling?
• Is population control an infringement on personal rights?
• Should we ban affirmative action?

 

 

As for the rules(I'm assuming this is what you mean by format), I'd base it off of my state government program I'm in:

• All participants pick a side(referred to as pro/con) on a given statement.I.E. "We should colonize Venus instead of Mars.
• Pro team will then proceed to post their arguments. Each member of the pro-team get's to post a single time during a 24 hour period.(let's say days with an odd date).
• Con team will then proceed to post their arguments. Each member of the con-team get's to post a single time during a 24 hour period.(Let's say days with an even date).
• So debate would continue for a set amount of time, ending on CON everytime(since pro started it).
• Posts can be stand-alone or they can quote previous arguments made by participants.
• No cursing/name-calling.
• Posts that are "out of order"(wrong day by the wrong team, second post, edited after the 24 hour period, etc,) will automatically be deleted.

 

 

 

[Silvestru]

 Hello Raider5678, Cap'n Refsmmat,

I really agree with the idea but it's going to be difficult to keep things in check by an objective admin I presume that specialises in the topic.

What I am referring to is if you don't organise teams with limited numbers, people will just voice their arguments many times, I suspect without any evidence base.

If the question is: Is global warming real? 

If on one side 100 uneducated people give answers like:  (all real quotes by the way)

Quote

"Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit."

Quote

"God buried fossil fuels "because he loves to see us find them."

Quote

"100 years is a long time . . . There is an extremely high chance that the very nature of human society itself will have changed by that time in ways that render this entire issue moot."

And on the other, 2-3 people who actually base their opinion on observational evidence, data and other boring stuff and nerdspeak. Then I'm sure it won't be too productive.

If you want this to differ from a normal thread, we should somehow decide on 2 teams or 3 people lets say that we will pick in advance and make a locked thread to all other people who are not part of this debate. (spectators)

Of course, all this sounds like a lot of work for the admins. But I would really like to see that.

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Silvestru said:

 Hello Raider5678, Cap'n Refsmmat,

I really agree with the idea but it's going to be difficult to keep things in check by an objective admin I presume that specialises in the topic.

What I am referring to is if you don't organise teams with limited numbers, people will just voice their arguments many times, I suspect without any evidence base.

If the question is: Is global warming real? 

If on one side 100 uneducated people give answers like:  (all real quotes by the way)

And on the other, 2-3 people who actually base their opinion on observational evidence, data and other boring stuff and nerdspeak. Then I'm sure it won't be too productive.

If you want this to differ from a normal thread, we should somehow decide on 2 teams or 3 people lets say that we will pick in advance and make a locked thread to all other people who are not part of this debate. (spectators)

Of course, all this sounds like a lot of work for the admins. But I would really like to see that.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I suggested not using topics that will essentially be non-debatable.