1 on1 debate section

[randomc]

what happened to it? It was the ultimate resolution to threads such as the current 'Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?'. Bring it back!

[ydoaPs]

what happened to it? It was the ultimate resolution to threads such as the current 'Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?'. Bring it back!

 

It wasn't used much.

[mooeypoo]

what happened to it? It was the ultimate resolution to threads such as the current 'Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?'. Bring it back!

How is that the best resolution to such threads, though?

 

I never understood the appeal of the 1on1 section, honestly. It seems to me that the best discussions are ones where there are MANY people sharing views, helping one another phrase their thoughts and/or argue on subtle points, etc.

 

I always thought 1on1 debates usually test the participants' charisma, rather than the subject at hand.

 

~moo

[abskebabs]

I always thought 1on1 debates usually test the participants' charisma, rather than the subject at hand.

~moo

I always thought the same was true in general of debates, especially of the kind held at University or School debating societies.

[jackson33]

I agree randomc; Apparently as you do, I'll read more post than respond to and would rather see the thread go in a straight line (reply to reply), than trying to figure out who else got involved. Then the idea of comments or a continuance of the arguments, after the debate could be interesting.

 

I was not aware the program had ever been activated, only noticing the last attempt, a little over a year ago which apparently acceptable debaters had not applied. Also the idea of a payment or reward seems unrealistic, even childish and I certainly would not give out my address for 10.00.

 

The other problem I recall, was not allowing the posters to challenge a person on a particular subject or issue. That is picking in advance an issue, limits the interest to the posters.

 

I do know, where allowed or allowed to continue, an unintended two poster thread can draw a tremendous number of views.

 

I always thought 1on1 debates usually test the participants' charisma, rather than the subject at hand.[/Quote]

 

mooeypoo; Or lack of it, which gets lost in everyday posting. If somehow you can figure a way for two posters with some debating knowledge, capable of debating from either side and an interest in the subject, I'd bet viewership, then membership could skyrocket. It's getting a combination or several over time to participate that's the problem.

 

I would suggest some system of challenging through the posters and no limitation for post per day or week, so long as a reply is made with in a 24 Hour period. Limits before as I recall were four paragraphs per post, which is fine, but I'd limit or forbid any references to outside sources (other than possibly reference sites without comment at the end of a post), during the debate period. It would probably not need an over all time limit (week, 10 days, 20 post or whatever), with the 24 hour rule, as some one will eventually miss the deadline, or the debate had taken on life...I might also suggest, a good many of your posters, including moderators (think were not permitted before) would run out of ideas in a few days. One more thing; Comments found at the end of many articles or in this case after the debate are more interesting than the article or again in the case, if used after the debate.

[mooeypoo]

I dunno, jackson33, I always got frustrated that I couldn't join in...

[Sisyphus]

It seems to me that when a discussion turns into a debate is usually when it stops being productive. I'm not opposed to the idea if lots of people want it, but I have no interest in it myself.

[jackson33]

I dunno, jackson33, I always got frustrated that I couldn't join in...[/Quote]

 

I'm not aware how/why the first one failed or more important how many viewed. If they had very low viewership, the debaters ineffective, the issues of little interest, that they simply ended 'locked', the winner declared or what the problems to claim "lack of interest" is/was based on.

 

If a debate, was interesting and did stimulate an audience, you, possibly myself and many others would be foaming at the mouth to jump in on one side or the other, that's the point of a debate. If comments are used or simply open the thread for discussion, that's when we can get involved. In your case with a little more time and the motivation to assist the forums influence, you or most any of the moderators should be included. Possibly even merchandise the program as "Challenge A Moderator".

 

It seems to me that when a discussion turns into a debate is usually when it stops being productive. I'm not opposed to the idea if lots of people want it, but I have no interest in it myself.[/Quote]

 

Debate and arguing are not necessarily the same thing. Most good debaters can easily take either side of an issue and make a good case for its validity, usefulness or whatever the end results could be. In this case, I would hope the person actually believed in the side taken and why I suggested letting the posters do the challenging and the topic or issue.

 

I do know after, your last attempt to restart or continue 1 on 1 program, there was a flurry of activity on google, under 'Online Debate', which were starting from scratch, no forum membership base to work from. It seemed like a natural to me then and does so today. However they are just my random thoughts address to the threads author...

[Mr Skeptic]

what happened to it? It was the ultimate resolution to threads such as the current 'Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?'. Bring it back!

 

It would certainly seem like a better way to resolve personal disputes that would otherwise be spread throughout another thread and could end up unresolved. Also in cases where one side of an argument has more people than the other, it would prevent the majority from simply drowning out the minority (which due to limited time would have to leave some questions unanswered or spend less time on each), while on the other hand not allowing the minority to simply choose to reply to only the weaker arguments.

 

I understand that would be a completely different use than the original though.

[CaptainPanic]

I dunno, jackson33, I always got frustrated that I couldn't join in...

I agree, I want to be able to join in if I want to.

I would oppose any 1-on-1 debate section where people can voluntarily enter a 1-on-1 debate.

 

however, in some cases it could be useful to remove a number of posts from 2 people "fighting", and dump it all in a private section... sort of like a solitary confinement. But I doubt that we really need something like that. We're fine as it is, and we have enough moderators who keep the forum clean (compliments, mods).