Full Version: Formal debating
I originally found this forum in a search for alternative websites where people could go to debate political issues. My usual forum hangout has a stated policy of not facilitating political debates, but this arena looks promising. So far it looks fairly informal, which is obviously fine. My question, then, is whether there are any provisions for more formal debates.
In this context, I'd look for the following
* restricted write access to specific threads, for a pair of individual users or teams of users and an optional referee (not necessarily a moderator)
* format control, e.g. statement-rebut-counter, per participant agreement
* optional timekeeping, e.g. 1 hour per statement post and 15 minutes for rebut and counter
* optional scoring via panel points and/or reader poll
All the other rules of the forum would be remain place, of course. I ask because, while there is considerable interest in supporting and refuting political issues, there is a corresponding vaccuum with respect to forensic rules enforcement. While it's certainly fun to jump in and argue, it's also fun to read a well-moderated debate sequence. If such is not currently done, perhaps it could be arranged at least between senior members on a weekly basis?
In this context, I'd look for the following
* restricted write access to specific threads, for a pair of individual users or teams of users and an optional referee (not necessarily a moderator)
* format control, e.g. statement-rebut-counter, per participant agreement
* optional timekeeping, e.g. 1 hour per statement post and 15 minutes for rebut and counter
* optional scoring via panel points and/or reader poll
All the other rules of the forum would be remain place, of course. I ask because, while there is considerable interest in supporting and refuting political issues, there is a corresponding vaccuum with respect to forensic rules enforcement. While it's certainly fun to jump in and argue, it's also fun to read a well-moderated debate sequence. If such is not currently done, perhaps it could be arranged at least between senior members on a weekly basis?
QUOTE
optional timekeeping, e.g. 1 hour per statement post and 15 minutes for rebut and counter
Uh, not very convenient for those of us who check in on the boards from work, etc....
This is a good idea. I've seen formal debates succeed on other boards.
Not a bad idea, Organism - and, as you will have gleaned, nothing like that is currently in place. Like DTOM, I'd be a little concerned with the logistics for some people who might otherwise like to participate in such a formal setting, but otherwise it's worth exploring.
You will find, though, that the level of moderation here (thanks, Jaime, thanks, Mike) which does help keep most discussions, however informal, from declining into name-calling, blanket generalizations, and personal attacks. They're also pretty good about keeping one's research rigorous - you can't get away with much (apart from pure opinion) which is not substantiated.
Anyway, this is worth discussing - perhaps get in touch with Jaime and/or Mike directly to explore the technical limitations...
You will find, though, that the level of moderation here (thanks, Jaime, thanks, Mike) which does help keep most discussions, however informal, from declining into name-calling, blanket generalizations, and personal attacks. They're also pretty good about keeping one's research rigorous - you can't get away with much (apart from pure opinion) which is not substantiated.
Anyway, this is worth discussing - perhaps get in touch with Jaime and/or Mike directly to explore the technical limitations...
Thanks, but that's not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.
Mike and I spent A LOT of time formalizing our Rules and Guidelines with much input from our members. There will be no changes for now.
Mike and I spent A LOT of time formalizing our Rules and Guidelines with much input from our members. There will be no changes for now.
Jaime:
> There will be no changes (in rules) for now.
Well, I was mostly inquiring about a potential feature set, rather than general discussion rules. I understand that time and technology limitations are involved here. Since one of the stated goals is to bring in working politicians as members, it might be a good draw to have a procedure for setting up a formal debate thread. Some of them might be more willing to actively participate if they can be guaranteed a time limit, or a known list of opponents.
Wertz & DTOM
> I'd be a little concerned with the logistics for some people
> not very convenient for those of us who check in on the boards from work
This wouldn't be something you'd get into on an ad-hoc basis. It would be more of a forensics-oriented thing, where participants agree in advance to use certain procedures in a discussion of a restricted topic, that's all. But the open discussion is fine with me, too, as far as it goes. Heck, I'd expect that for every such formal debate thread, there'd be at least one parallel open discussion thread happening simultaneously and spontaneously, like kibbitzing during a chess match.
As Danya notes, it has succeeded in other forums, and this is nominally a debate site.
> There will be no changes (in rules) for now.
Well, I was mostly inquiring about a potential feature set, rather than general discussion rules. I understand that time and technology limitations are involved here. Since one of the stated goals is to bring in working politicians as members, it might be a good draw to have a procedure for setting up a formal debate thread. Some of them might be more willing to actively participate if they can be guaranteed a time limit, or a known list of opponents.
Wertz & DTOM
> I'd be a little concerned with the logistics for some people
> not very convenient for those of us who check in on the boards from work
This wouldn't be something you'd get into on an ad-hoc basis. It would be more of a forensics-oriented thing, where participants agree in advance to use certain procedures in a discussion of a restricted topic, that's all. But the open discussion is fine with me, too, as far as it goes. Heck, I'd expect that for every such formal debate thread, there'd be at least one parallel open discussion thread happening simultaneously and spontaneously, like kibbitzing during a chess match.
As Danya notes, it has succeeded in other forums, and this is nominally a debate site.
Organism - with all due respect, I am a bit put off by anyone who can so easily critique my site after being a member for only a few hours.
The beauty of this place is that if a politician or anyone is intelligent enough to come in he or she better be ready to have a conversation with the American people. They will not be allowed to hide behind time limits and point systems.
The concept of debate need not be limited to high school debate teams and how politicians do it on T.V. Debate can be had in many forms. The form here is conversational. We share ideas for as long as they interest us. I will not tell someone they need to stop just because the clock says an hour has passed.
The beauty of this place is that if a politician or anyone is intelligent enough to come in he or she better be ready to have a conversation with the American people. They will not be allowed to hide behind time limits and point systems.
The concept of debate need not be limited to high school debate teams and how politicians do it on T.V. Debate can be had in many forms. The form here is conversational. We share ideas for as long as they interest us. I will not tell someone they need to stop just because the clock says an hour has passed.
There is not one person here that could be an impartial judge.
> I am a bit put off by anyone who can so easily critique my site after
> being a member for only a few hours.
Apologies. My intent was not criticism, but inquiry and suggestion. I won't debate the merits of imposed structure here, I was just asking if you accomodated or were planning to accomodate such things.
> being a member for only a few hours.
Apologies. My intent was not criticism, but inquiry and suggestion. I won't debate the merits of imposed structure here, I was just asking if you accomodated or were planning to accomodate such things.
QUOTE(0rganism @ Jan 25 2003, 09:28 PM)
Jaime:
> There will be no changes (in rules) for now.
Well, I was mostly inquiring about a potential feature set, rather than general discussion rules. I understand that time and technology limitations are involved here. Since one of the stated goals is to bring in working politicians as members, it might be a good draw to have a procedure for setting up a formal debate thread. Some of them might be more willing to actively participate if they can be guaranteed a time limit, or a known list of opponents.
Wertz & DTOM
> I'd be a little concerned with the logistics for some people
> not very convenient for those of us who check in on the boards from work
This wouldn't be something you'd get into on an ad-hoc basis. It would be more of a forensics-oriented thing, where participants agree in advance to use certain procedures in a discussion of a restricted topic, that's all. But the open discussion is fine with me, too, as far as it goes. Heck, I'd expect that for every such formal debate thread, there'd be at least one parallel open discussion thread happening simultaneously and spontaneously, like kibbitzing during a chess match.
As Danya notes, it has succeeded in other forums, and this is nominally a debate site.
> There will be no changes (in rules) for now.
Well, I was mostly inquiring about a potential feature set, rather than general discussion rules. I understand that time and technology limitations are involved here. Since one of the stated goals is to bring in working politicians as members, it might be a good draw to have a procedure for setting up a formal debate thread. Some of them might be more willing to actively participate if they can be guaranteed a time limit, or a known list of opponents.
Wertz & DTOM
> I'd be a little concerned with the logistics for some people
> not very convenient for those of us who check in on the boards from work
This wouldn't be something you'd get into on an ad-hoc basis. It would be more of a forensics-oriented thing, where participants agree in advance to use certain procedures in a discussion of a restricted topic, that's all. But the open discussion is fine with me, too, as far as it goes. Heck, I'd expect that for every such formal debate thread, there'd be at least one parallel open discussion thread happening simultaneously and spontaneously, like kibbitzing during a chess match.
As Danya notes, it has succeeded in other forums, and this is nominally a debate site.
I very much dislike that.
1- Americas debate is formal
2- You cant set up "formal" debates because we have kids here...Kids like to argue their position no matter the cost
QUOTE(Juber3 @ Jan 26 2003, 11:43 AM)
2- You cant set up "formal" debates because we have kids here...Kids like to argue their position no matter the cost
Jubes - that is NOT a reason with which I agree. Even "kids" must follow the existing rules
Hello 0rganism.
While I do have to admit that a more rigorous, structured debate is a good idea, I think that it is simply not possible for this site, nor do I believe it would be truly successful.
The structured debating of which you speak would involve a huge time commitment.
Right now, we run completely free software from Invision Power Services. The key word is free.
It would require a major modification of the boards basic functions in order to setup an automated system by which we could conduct scheduled debate with strict time limits, strict rule enforcement, and scoring.
I simply do not have the knowledge or drive to undertake such a serious endeavor.
The issue of debate rules would also be a factor, beyond the technical aspects, as to why this would not work at America's Debate.
In an attempt to hold back from insulting any of our members, I'll simply suggest that you read the rules. Note the parts that mention staying on topic. Now, read some of the topics here, and note how often people go off topic (a lot).
The rules are very clearly written, and even our best members often stray from the rules set forth for casual debating. What are the chances of everyone reading, understanding, and abiding by an even-stricter set of rules? I'd say slim.
You had brought up our intentions of bringing politicians on board to participate in the debate. While the "welcome" page may be a bit outdated at this point (it was written the day we launched), that is still our intention. It would be, however, unrealistic to expect any politician to make any sort of time commitment to debate issues on a national website.
We currently have at least one elected official in regular participation who holds office, I believe, at the city level. It is anyone's guess as to whether or not any of our other members are elected officials or to what level they were elected.
Ideally, we are creating a way for politicians to gauge the general opinion of the country while at the same time having the ability to pose questions and exchange ideas on an anonymous level. Our diverse member base also provides de facto position statements running the entire spectrum on nearly every issue.
In order to conduct structured debate with known politicians, another layer would need to be added into the mix: identity confirmation. We would certainly have to go through a rigorous confirmation process before allowing anyone to post as a politician, and this may hinder some politicians' willingness to participate. We would also likely have to confirm the identity of the members who participate in the debate with the politicians in order to ensure the politicians are debating with their actual constituents.
Who knows what the future holds. Right now, we are funded and run by Jaime and me. We contend there is a possibility, however slight, that a philanthropist will donate a large sum of money to America's Debate.
Or, there is a chance that we or one of our members could win the lotto. 
In that case, given the proper funding, anything is possible.
It was mentioned in this thread that other websites have been successful with this form of debate. I would be interested in seeing those sites if you could forward me those links.
Thanks,
Mike
While I do have to admit that a more rigorous, structured debate is a good idea, I think that it is simply not possible for this site, nor do I believe it would be truly successful.
The structured debating of which you speak would involve a huge time commitment.
Right now, we run completely free software from Invision Power Services. The key word is free.
It would require a major modification of the boards basic functions in order to setup an automated system by which we could conduct scheduled debate with strict time limits, strict rule enforcement, and scoring.
I simply do not have the knowledge or drive to undertake such a serious endeavor.
The issue of debate rules would also be a factor, beyond the technical aspects, as to why this would not work at America's Debate.
In an attempt to hold back from insulting any of our members, I'll simply suggest that you read the rules. Note the parts that mention staying on topic. Now, read some of the topics here, and note how often people go off topic (a lot).
The rules are very clearly written, and even our best members often stray from the rules set forth for casual debating. What are the chances of everyone reading, understanding, and abiding by an even-stricter set of rules? I'd say slim.
You had brought up our intentions of bringing politicians on board to participate in the debate. While the "welcome" page may be a bit outdated at this point (it was written the day we launched), that is still our intention. It would be, however, unrealistic to expect any politician to make any sort of time commitment to debate issues on a national website.
We currently have at least one elected official in regular participation who holds office, I believe, at the city level. It is anyone's guess as to whether or not any of our other members are elected officials or to what level they were elected.
Ideally, we are creating a way for politicians to gauge the general opinion of the country while at the same time having the ability to pose questions and exchange ideas on an anonymous level. Our diverse member base also provides de facto position statements running the entire spectrum on nearly every issue.
In order to conduct structured debate with known politicians, another layer would need to be added into the mix: identity confirmation. We would certainly have to go through a rigorous confirmation process before allowing anyone to post as a politician, and this may hinder some politicians' willingness to participate. We would also likely have to confirm the identity of the members who participate in the debate with the politicians in order to ensure the politicians are debating with their actual constituents.
Who knows what the future holds. Right now, we are funded and run by Jaime and me. We contend there is a possibility, however slight, that a philanthropist will donate a large sum of money to America's Debate.
Or, there is a chance that we or one of our members could win the lotto. In that case, given the proper funding, anything is possible.It was mentioned in this thread that other websites have been successful with this form of debate. I would be interested in seeing those sites if you could forward me those links.
Thanks,
Mike
I think a structured debate is a good idea. However, I don't think AD has the user base to support it.
I would like to see this subject revisited in a couple years...maybe it will be more practical then...
--cheers
I would like to see this subject revisited in a couple years...maybe it will be more practical then...
--cheers
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.