One-on-one debate threads

[Mr Skeptic]

My suggestion is the creation of a "one on one" debate section. It doesn't have to actually lock other people out from it; they could just be ignored. The purpose is to increase the fairness and quality of debates, when one side is vastly under-represented.

 

Having partaken in a few threads where I'm the minority, things get confusing very quickly with lots of people making all kinds of arguments, some of which are repeats, bringing up already resolved issues, and occasionally all demanding their specific posts get answered. There's also plenty of flawed arguments and misunderstandings. The minority then has to either spend an awful lot of time reading everything or will just have to answer everything quicker, which can result in lower quality. It can also be discouraging. There can be lots of repetition and bad feelings, one side from being stressed and the other from being "ignored". Also there's the risk of the minority being able to get away with ignoring all the strong bits of the argument and answering to the weak or irrelevant parts, of which there will be plenty.

 

Think of back in the day when duels of honor were done. Sometimes people chose a champion to fight for them. What there never was was a giant mob beating up one guy, not for a duel at least. One-on-one just seems more honorable.

 

Now there are two separate forms of debate: one is a debate to convince a wider audience, while the other is a debate to convince each other. I'm thinking more the second kind, as otherwise a whole lot of arbitration would have to happen, but I don't really think the PM system would be good enough for extensive debate.

 

Also, the people debating could cede the position to a different person. Alternately, there could be two threads, one for anyone to comment in (or two, one for each side), and then the "real" one where the two chief debaters could make their case, making use of interesting and non-redundant points raised in the commentary thread. And the commentary threads would allow the majority side to point flaws in suggested things on their own side, which for the most part would otherwise fall to the minority. If nothing else, this would condense some of our absurdly long threads to only the interesting bits.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Guess you arrived a little too late:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=84

 

(The forum's archived now, so it's only accessible by direct link.)

 

I love the idea, but the last attempt died when nobody was willing to start debates. However, we could certainly encourage members engaged in long, drawn-out threads to get their arguments together and start a duel.

 

Take a look through the old debate forum and its rules and let me know if you have any suggestions to make it better. If there's enough interest I wouldn't object to reopening it, although it might just run out of steam like the last one.

 

Also, please ignore the 2004 version of me being an idiot.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[Mr Skeptic]

OK, I think the best method would be to have 3 threads per debate topic, and probably no formal moderation. One thread for each side, where they can decide among other things who to represent their side, and also to pass the podium to someone else if they wish. After that, the two selected debaters start debating in the debate thread.

 

Observers can participate indirectly (which will help make things interesting for them) by commenting in one of the two commentary threads, and also the debaters should read these threads to pick out the good arguments in them.

 

The reason I suggest no formal moderation is because that would likely scare away people, and I'd like to think we can pick good people for the debate. Perhaps also complaints about debate tactics and such can go on the commentary threads, so as not to clog the debate thread. Yes, complaints should definitely be made on the commentary threads first. Having no formal moderation I think would increase overall quality, not of the specific debate threads but rather by encouraging the debate threads.

 

---

 

As to the original debate threads, I note one of them got 8,700 views, and they all have over 1,500 views. I suspect a lot of these are due to new visitors continuously drawn in by teh googles. Any idea how many views the threads had when the debates ended?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[The Bear's Key]

I recommend it be done without anyone knowing the identities of debaters until after the vote.

 

Say you want to open a debate, contact your opponent by PM, agree to having it and then each send a PM to Cap'n Redbeard, who sets it up.

 

Posts would be anonymous to the rest of us, submitted privately, then it's simply a matter of copy and paste (by the mod) onto the debate thread.

 

Now people are voting on substance, rather than a debater's popularity or known reputation.

 

 

 

As to the original debate threads, I note one of them got 8,700 views

Maybe by Ahmadinejad, similar others.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hmm, that could be interesting. And once the debate is over, the challengers are revealed?

 

That could be fun. But I'm not sure how many people would take the initiative to set it up. Would debaters in a thread prefer a one-on-one debate if it could be formal and anonymous?

[toastywombel]

My suggestion is the creation of a "one on one" debate section. It doesn't have to actually lock other people out from it; they could just be ignored. The purpose is to increase the fairness and quality of debates, when one side is vastly under-represented.

 

Having partaken in a few threads where I'm the minority, things get confusing very quickly with lots of people making all kinds of arguments, some of which are repeats, bringing up already resolved issues, and occasionally all demanding their specific posts get answered. There's also plenty of flawed arguments and misunderstandings. The minority then has to either spend an awful lot of time reading everything or will just have to answer everything quicker, which can result in lower quality. It can also be discouraging. There can be lots of repetition and bad feelings, one side from being stressed and the other from being "ignored". Also there's the risk of the minority being able to get away with ignoring all the strong bits of the argument and answering to the weak or irrelevant parts, of which there will be plenty.

 

Think of back in the day when duels of honor were done. Sometimes people chose a champion to fight for them. What there never was was a giant mob beating up one guy, not for a duel at least. One-on-one just seems more honorable.

 

Now there are two separate forms of debate: one is a debate to convince a wider audience, while the other is a debate to convince each other. I'm thinking more the second kind, as otherwise a whole lot of arbitration would have to happen, but I don't really think the PM system would be good enough for extensive debate.

 

Also, the people debating could cede the position to a different person. Alternately, there could be two threads, one for anyone to comment in (or two, one for each side), and then the "real" one where the two chief debaters could make their case, making use of interesting and non-redundant points raised in the commentary thread. And the commentary threads would allow the majority side to point flaws in suggested things on their own side, which for the most part would otherwise fall to the minority. If nothing else, this would condense some of our absurdly long threads to only the interesting bits.

 

This is an interesting idea, I would be willing to give it a go, but I don't really know who I would debate with.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is an interesting idea, I would be willing to give it a go, but I don't really know who I would debate with.

 

Well, if you are debating something with one person and it's basically everyone against that guy, that would be a good example of where one-on-one might be more effective.

[The Bear's Key]

Hmm, that could be interesting. And once the debate is over, the challengers are revealed?

 

That could be fun. But I'm not sure how many people would take the initiative to set it up. Would debaters in a thread prefer a one-on-one debate if it could be formal and anonymous?

It doesn't have to be formal in the sense of being officially moderated -- even though it'd gain quality, it'd also be impractical.

 

Maybe develop a points system to vote on: How effectively did one properly address legitimate questions / intellectual honesty (1-5 points). Remain on topic or at least relevant to the discussion? (1-5 points). Coherent arguments, its various pieces flow together into a solid whole (1-5 points).

 

I think a good debate takes effort and should have a yardstick for quality, so one side's time doesn't get or feel wasted. People can vote on that yardstick of quality.

 

The challengers should be revealed unless they opt not to be -- which is just as cool.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A structured debate format would make things even better, I think. Limit a thread to, say, five responses per side, with an introductory post by each and a concluding post by each. This would force the debaters to think through their arguments and make their case cohesively.

 

You can look through the old forum I linked to and see this in action. However, this anonymous debate idea sounds interesting.

[ecoli]

the reason it died, IIRC, was because debate challenges issued went ignored. I think I was involved somehow in the last attempt to do this.

[The Bear's Key]

So far it just seems like normal threads without the extra people.

 

It needs some kind of quality filter: like rather than linking to an entire webpage, contestants are graded on whether they quoted a relevant piece.

 

Also, I see opinions a lot more than should be in a debate. And why not points graded for a nice structure of citations as well?

[jackson33]

I wasn't around for the first round either, but this has come up since with a generally negative attitude. Mine being positive...

 

A couple ideas you might wish to consider....

 

When a poster/moderator (was not allowed second round) makes a challenge, allow at least a day, for anyone interested to accept the challenge, then the challenger picking his/her choice to debate. We all have folks we would rather not tangle with for any number of reason or find others that easier to discuss issues with. Would strongly suggest forgetting, 'blind posting' and that would limit interested posters/moderators.

 

You could limit debaters to having made -x- number of post, but with the challenger probably already aware of who is wishing to debate, that would seem unnecessary as would the methods or techniques used, by any particular person.

 

I really don't think you need to review a post, prior to it being entered, any more than you would any members post during regular activity. If for some reason one is out of order, break some rule, there are plenty of moderators that can take action, give a warning or anything they normally do, other than the debaters. Frankly, you want debaters concerned with the issue, rather than if some 3rd party is going to scold you for spelling or any source reliability, you might use.

 

I would think any good debate should be allowed to run it's course, so long as interesting, stays on topic, with a possible limit of days (suggest 7-10), opposed to number of entries made. You have several members, that could do 20 to 30 post in a week, with an active counterpart.

 

Ending a debate; When ever the debate ends, for what ever reason, either open the thread for comments or transfer to the appropriate sub-forum for discussion. I would prefer opening (unlocking) where surely there will be pent up comments to be made. Additionally those debating will have an idea, how effective they were...

 

 

Skeptic; I'll agree, it seems like when a discussion between two posters gets fired up, there always seems to be some, feeling the need to jump in and help one or the other party involved. Think that's natural, but often distorts the authors intent for the thread.

[The Bear's Key]

A debate needs some kind of format rules, but kept simple. And people can vote both on substance and how well the format's adhered to by each contestant.

 

Otherwise it still resembles a normal thread back-and-forth.

[Mr Skeptic]

A structured debate format would make things even better, I think. Limit a thread to, say, five responses per side, with an introductory post by each and a concluding post by each. This would force the debaters to think through their arguments and make their case cohesively.

 

That sounds interesting. It would certainly eliminate pointless and largely irrelevant arguing about minor details. I think it might be necessary to have longer debates for certain topics, although if a limit is agreed upon ahead of time, it should have a similar effect.

[The Bear's Key]

Some proposals...

 

• 1) To help deter favoritism, keep the challengers anonymous until voting's over.

 

• 2) To help deter people voting for their natural biases -- which might occur if people don't want to lend the impression of supporting what they certainly don't -- just include some vote options that in essence say "hey, person X won the debate, however I strongly disagree with their premise".

 

For example, a sample of vote choices (multiple picks)...

 

° X won (best debater / most convincing arguments)

° Y won (best debater / most convincing arguments)

° tied

° I agree with X

° I agree with Y

° I strongly disagree with X

° I strongly disagree with Y

 

• 3) Format...

 

° A specified # of posts each.

° You get to highlight up to three items within each of your posts, that opponent must address. Exception: you can't do so on your last post.

° You also can highlight up to three big/extraordinary claims in your opponent's posts, where they failed provide evidence. And you can do so on your last post as well. But if you got the final post and it has such large claims, the opponent gets an extra final post just to highlight those unreferenced claims (i.e. can't post anything else but those highlights).

[Radical Edward]

It's a nice idea, but even with large numbers of members it can be a pain to get debates together. I'm one of the admins over here http://talkrational.org/ and you can see how often we have formal debates despite having a pretty large member base with a lot of diverse opinions. One mechanism we came up which worked fairly well for a bit was "exclusive engagement threads" which were discussion threads limited to two or three members. Those were better for when you had one person (usually a creationist or some complete moron) who got piled on by dozens of other members and spent most of their time ignoring other people. one-on-ones stopped them from being ignorant.

 

Perhaps the best thing would be to have a method of running debates here which is posted in the forum announcements/rules or whatever and have ad-hoc debates in the relevant forums.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think debates are too intimidating and labor-intensive for most members to want to start any. An ad-hoc system would be interesting; what would be the motivation to challenge one person to a debate instead of continuing on a normal discussion?

 

(also, good grief! how many secular/free thought/skepticism/rationalism forums are there these days?)

[jackson33]

TBK; Debating is a skill of sorts, the winner not determinable on content over the issues likely to be addressed. A winner or loser, would then be based others agreeing or disagreeing with the issue (pro/con) in the first place. I have suggested the thread simply be opened for discussion, when the time runs out, feeling the participants could determine their own success, but if their was a three member "STAFF" picked and anonymously judging style only, that shouldn't offend anyone.

 

It's a nice idea, but even with large numbers of members it can be a pain to get debates together. [/Quote]

 

Ed; Not really, IMO, often a regular post can be more taxing. Debating, normally doesn't involve referencing each comment, rather personal viewpoints on an issue. Frankly I don't think backing up statements, under a debate format, should be allowed. Too many threads end up arguing for/against the references, not the poster, both sides. Aside from that, there are always many sites out there opposed to or agreeable with any controversial issue.

 

CR; I was under the impression, this would be an additional sub-forum, not a replacement for anything. For an example, I would pay (so to speak) to see Martin/swansont, debate Big Bang Theory or a number of subjects, with out interruption.

 

Of course no forum today or ever, has been with out some bias. That's actually a good reason to have a 'One on One' section, to begin with. As a controversial character myself, this forum, there are hundreds of subjects that interest me, that I would never offer a thread, knowing with in -0- percent error factor, the replies I could expect and from who. I could even write most of them and no one would know the difference.

 

In reality, your not getting much positive response (once again), so am not looking forward to anything, anytime soon but did and do agree with the OP on this thread...

[Radical Edward]

I think debates are too intimidating and labor-intensive for most members to want to start any. An ad-hoc system would be interesting; what would be the motivation to challenge one person to a debate instead of continuing on a normal discussion?

 

(also, good grief! how many secular/free thought/skepticism/rationalism forums are there these days?)

 

well some people just enjoy debating - that's pretty much the only reason that people would get involved in a debate of that kind. After all, debating is primarily about winning, rather than discussing. I find that I rarely learn much from them, so I don't bother.

 

(that forum has a complex history... most of the members used to post on one of the biggest freethought fora, IIDB, until there was some meltdown and they split off and made a new one - it's more of a community forum now more than anything else)

[Severian]

Well, if you are debating something with one person and it's basically everyone against that guy, that would be a good example of where one-on-one might be more effective.

 

I seem to be "that guy" in just about every thread I post in.

 

If we did do this, I don't think there is any point in people voting for "who won" at the end. People just vote for the position they support, not why debated the best. And why does someone have to win anyway?

[Rickdog]

Why should there be a declared winner in a debate as such ?

 

Imho, a debate as this, helps everybody to see and learn for their own about two diferent positions of belief, which can teach us all, by enhancing our own conceptions of things. If done in a respectful manner, we all get the chance to nourish from it. Maybe even through the debate, new threads in other sections can arise with more involvement of every body else, not jeopardizing the original one on one debate, by getting it off topic with diverse opinions.

 

Learning is not a matter of winners and losers. If we achieve knowledge through it, we all win.

[Darkchilde]

Back at RDF we had a debate section that worked well, and we had some nice debates. Most debates of course were science vs. religion, we even had one creationist try and debate one of our evolution experts, about macroevolution not happening [a lot of laughter that one]. I think that creationist has posted here too, he goes by the name of Robert Byers. [if you go to FSTD, there are plenty of quotes from that one. A lot of laughter from his posts.]

 

We did have 1 or 2 debates always going.

 

Now, at RS, we do have a debate forum, and since we have had some experience with such debates, we are waiting for people to start one.

 

The format for the debate is usually as follows: 10 posts each, one week max for each user to post their answer, and there was at least one moderator for the debate. The moderator made sure that the posts are in line with the FUA, and that they are relevant to the debate, as well as making the decision of who wins the debate and why.

 

Also, we had a commentary thread where people could go and discuss the debate, but the debaters themselves were told not to go and look at that thread, and usually debaters did not use that thread.

 

Posts for the debate have to be approved by the moderator before they can be seen by everyone else, including the second debater.

 

If I have forgotten something, I will come back on this.

[Mr Skeptic]

I seem to be "that guy" in just about every thread I post in.

 

If we did do this, I don't think there is any point in people voting for "who won" at the end. People just vote for the position they support, not why debated the best. And why does someone have to win anyway?

 

Hm, but I think that it would at least be fair to declare someone the loser if they repeatedly violate the rules of debate. But yes; judged debates are supposed to be done on a neutral topic so that the winner is based on the debating skills of the participants rather than the "truth" of their answer. But that would be rather limiting if we just had debates on such topics.

[ydoaPs]

Also, please ignore the 2004 version of me being an idiot.

 

Same for me, please.

[The Bear's Key]

The format for the debate is usually as follows....

Not a bad system.