Please define the aim of the board: to come to a consensus or to have a structured debate and vote on who has the best argument. These are two very different aims and would require different actions.
- ben
Why not just use what we have already? Each debate will fit into one of the already available Topics. So you could use two different threads, example:
Subject Debate: Animal Rights (Fore / Against)
Then a week later or at the end of the debate, start another thread:
Subject Debate: Animal Rights (Poll)
The first is for the discussion and arguments Fore and Against. While the second is just for the casting of votes. Options like Fore, Against, Inconclusive, or other relevant choices could be included.
Pax Vitae
I have a sort of elaboration of this idea that could perhaps be done as well…?
Something I found very entertaining in a camp I went to a couple of summers ago: we had two opposing sides, with an equal number of representatives. We would think of an issue that had pretty much two opposing views (you’re either pro or against). One side of the room would argue in support of it regardless of the representatives’ views, and the other side would argue against it, also regardless of their personal views.
As such I found myself in some difficult situations. I once had to argue in support of racism (shivers). I had to shower as soon as I got back to the barracks.
I would like to see that here as a sort of entertainment. Wouldn’t it be great. We could select say… 4, or 6, 10 members of the board randomly, and the moderaters could determine what side they argue…
Example: Moderaters choose the issue of The Existance of God. They choose Pangloss and Skeptic (randomly) to argue pro-existance and Magius and Brad (randomly) to argue against-existance.
No one else could post other then the moderaters (who could act as judges or something (shrug)) and the players chosen. There could then be a poll at the end as suggested by Skeptic.
Just a thought…?
Ben to answer your question, I think the aim would be to have a structured debate and vote on who has the best argument. It would be more like a presentation of the most convincing arguement (like a court room).
Hi,
I think there is definitely room for this type of debate but I do not like the idea of people arguing for things they do not believe in. It can happen up to a point but if we are really trying to get to the bottom of things it helps if people are passionate about what they are arguing for. I understand that in public debating you are meant to argue whether you agree or not but I think we are aiming for something else on this board.
A structured debate can still happen but 2-4 (arbitary numbers) people who believe in a certain topic and group with 2-4 who are against it and then they can have some sort of structured debate with rebuttals etc. It seems that otherwise we are arguing for the sake of arguing which doesn’t sit right with me. Up to a point it helps to argue for the side you are against but I would rather steer away from it on this board.
thoughts?
- ben
I must second Ben. It would be entirely corrupted and pointless, if people ended up arguing what they do not believe.
There is, of course, the risk that one side of the debate would sway the opponent early on. Which is why before we start anything, we would have to ensure that those taking part, really do start with a different view on an issue.
If we can’t find a knowledgeable or passionate enough arguer for a particular cause then we’ll find them from outside. For example, if we were to start off with an animal rights debate, and (I think this may be likely) we can’t find anyone on our boards who are passionate about animal welfare, then we could call someone in from the League Against Cruel Sports.
I think a better, and more likely debate, involving our existing users, would be on the existence of God, though I suspect that the course of such a debate would be a touch predictable, even if the theist were engaging with the opponents ideas. Personally, a real-life (sorry theists!) moral conundrum would probably be appopriate.
Any suggestions? Any thoughts?
I liked Ben and Pangloss’s additions. Personally, I don’t think the debate needs to be regulated, all debates are already regulated by moderators. A forum to this would be to make a board within a board. Needless dichatomy.
anonymous and loving originally stated:
Nice idea, but how is it different then what we are all already doing? If that is your idea, than start a thread with a topic and express your views on it. People will come in and share their views on it, and so forth. If people in the discussion are losing the point or going off tangent, merely remind them that you would like to know where this idea could take us, for what end it is good, and how we can attain that end. To me, I am almost always sharing and exchanging info, knowing only too well the inability to know anything as a true form of knowledge - plato affected with that. Teleological discussions are interesting, but let me say it again, you can simply start a thread about a topic and iterate your claim that you wish to come to some conclusion or final solution that are all generally satisfied with.
My personal opinion on this is that we would get lost in the details, facts, media, public opinion, personal opinion, religious implications, and political theory about what is actually happening and what we could actually do (given that we could actually instigate our ideas). See, we can’t even be truly clear on what is really going on, just have a look at any of the political discussions going on in the myriad threads in the Political and Economics Forum.
Don’t mean to be a party pooper… 
I’m going to have to politely disagree with you, Magius. Nearly everything on these fora are unregulated. You can tell this by the number of truly horrendous things that have been written here.
I can understand how you may see an idea for a heavily-regulated and tightly bound debate as some kind of power trip for the moderator. However, the moderator could end up being anyone. This is, as put before, very much an experiment to determine a set of rules to govern discussion and ensure that when two sides find themselves perpetually disagreeing. To find concrete ways of finding common ground, of deconstructing your own and your opponents arguments, so as t find a consensus, and (eventually)
Because the debate will entirely free of pride luggage or denial, it would have the rare effect of getting to the core of the issue. It would go as far as is possible. However, I would suggest, that in another thread at the time, there be an analysis, a kind of running commentary, of what is going on, so as to understand the scaffoldiong of a constructive discussion. This will all become much clearer when we actually do it, if we get down to discussing the ‘forms’ of The Chamber.
I agree and maybe my conception of this idea is a bit different than what everyone else is proposing. I think Magius makes an important point. What’s the difference in this and any other thread? Well, unless it is focused on a “one on one” structured and regulated debate, it is “no different” than any other thread.
It should consist of an b introductory argument[/b] from each of the opposing sides, followed by b correlating rebuttals[/b]. Then each side will provide a b reply to the rebuttals[/b] and finally the debate will end with each of the opponents b concluding arguments[/b].
From thence, each argument will be analyzed and then judged by either assigned judges or just the members of the board via a poll.
Pangloss, I think that you have the same idea except that you are opting that just anyone may enter the debate rather than the “one on one” idea that I am proposing. Yes? I just think that it would be too difficult to analyse and moderate multiple people arguing from each side. It would just get too confusing and would ultimately turn into a thread resembling any other thread on the board. I think we must keep it very simple in order for this concept to work and be effective. It could be very interesting if it works. I guess I am also seeing that we don’t really need a devoted forum as it could be held in any of the current forums.
So let’s give it a trial run! Anyone want to propose a debatable and controversial topic?
I dont think polling will make a good “judgement” of the arguments.
Those who already agree with certain views will surely say that the arguments proposing and/or defending those views will have been the ‘best’ arguments.
my two cents,
Adam.
I agree with Skeptic, and with adam.naranjo. Little will be learnt from having a poll.
Which forum do you suggest we use? Should it depend on the topic, or should we just put it in E&T, as that seems to be the place for designated regulation of debate.
I’ll be thinking of a topic, but how about the proposition being, ‘This house believes that to know of an afterlife, is to know thyself’. I am guessing, Skeptic, that you would want to oppose that proposition. Any brave takers to defend the proposition? Or any better propositions?
Once we have the debaters, we should make clear the rules. To not engage with the opposing ideas and critique, is to concede defeat. Hence the heavy regulation. Maybe the chair (say, me, for example) could aid users in preparing their submission, to ensure that there is a full and active engagement (Bush pun intended). As long as we’re clear and agreed on what is within the moderators power before-hand, and where is best for it to take place, then we can start.
Pangloss stated:
Ahm…please watch your use of words. The above is a quote from your post in response to mine, yet I never said anything about a debate being any kind of power trip for anyone - not moderator, poster, nor admin. So please don’t put words in my mouth, I know you probably didn’t mean to, nor do I want an apology, just try not to do it. I have posted enough posts about assuming too much without giving the courtesy of asking, if the above quote is something you thought I meant, things would go more smoothly if you just asked. If the paragraph was aimed at someone else, please make sure to label who, since the only name within your post is in the first paragraph, and the name is ‘Magius’.
Furthermore, I don’t worry about anyone getting on a power trip. I just honestly don’t think there is a need for a controlled debate. There is need for more participation, more members, etc. But other than that, as far as I have watched posts and threads go, especially between the more sensible people on the board, there is no need for it. If you control it and you get some people who just want to be abnoxious, its not going to help much.
But anyway, I hope everything goes through, despite my reluctance. I look forward to the indepth discussions the thread or forum will incite.
What’s your take?
I think the style of debate which skeptic has proposed, which is the way structured public debating is done in UK (certainly all the debates I took part in), is a good one and I think it would do well in it’s own forum.
May i suggest that Leo takes control of the board and along with the other staff comes up with a set of rules/guidelines as to how the board is run and then the forum is opened up to the members.
i think there needs to be some sort of control because we don’t want just anyone posting in a debate that has been structured for 2 people only. I think it is also important to emphasise the use of research when making your case. Saying your opinion is great but it will be more of a learning process if research is done, articles are cited and a bibliography and extra reading is given. When making a claim of fact, state where you got it from so it can be traced, interent sites are preferable because everyone can access them.
looking forward to seeing this forum get off the ground!
- ben
Glad to see I have some support. Well let’s give it a try and add the “Debate Forum” to the experimental section. BTW, why don’t you go ahead and move the “Essays & Theses” forum along with the “Creative Writing” forum to the regular section? I think that they would be used more there. Yes? I’m guessing Leo = Pangloss? So, Pangloss get us started and I will jump in.
Here is my suggestion for rules and guidelines:
Each argument will be formatted as follows . . .
(1) introductory argument
(2) correlating rebuttals
(3) reply to the rebuttals
(4) concluding arguments
I’m not quite sure how to decide who goes first, so I suggest that the topic proposer goes first and the challenger goes second. Any other suggestions?
I would prefer that there be two judges, but it is unlikely that we will have enough participation, so I guess one will do. Here is how I propose the arguments be evaluated:
Hopefully that is not too confusing nor cumbersome. Rules for the forum? No one should comment on the argument until after the debate is finalized. Then the thread should be open to criticism and commenting. Any other ideas?
I’d love to although I think I will have a hard time finding an opposition. Anyone? Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or just anyone who wants to debate the plausibility of an afterlife?
I must applaud the organization and hard work going into this new forum idea. I didn’t think it was going to be so organized (as details lacked at the beginning of the discussion), but I am impressed at how together this topic has gotten and that people are serious and interested in doing it. Despite my previous reluctance, I give my Bravo! and two thumbs up for the idea.
Once everything is organized and the forum is made, I wouldn’t mind being Skeptic’s opposition for the discussion of the afterlife. Hopefully it won’t be too soon, as I would love to involve as much of my time and resources to the topic as possible, and unfortunately I am busy with school at the moment and the possibility of leaving the country for a few days.
If not, then I will wait my turn. Wishing you all the best.
What’s your take?
No-one should debate a line they are not entirely convinced of. I’ll use your judging criteria for the time being, though to be honest, it is not really the competitive element that attracted me to the idea in the first place. It was the opportunity to see (within a ‘controlled environment’) how a debate works in moving towards the truth, a common truth. Hence, the idea of their being ‘concluding arguments’ whilst being a nice way to clean up the debate, and bring some finality to it, it may not be desirable if it is clear that there is still a way to go, that both debaters are not broadly agreed on at least a few key elements of the issues being debated.
I’ll insert small comment pieces as to how or if to advance the debate further, and will keep the two debaters informed. Both should (if in any doubt as to the desirability of their submission) send their ‘cases’ to leopollak@hotmail.com. I’ll embellish remove or suggest bits and pieces, if necessary, before the user submits, so the debate keeps a strong momentum, and doesn’t just lapse into two walls facing each other, with no effort on either side to build a bridge. The forms and procedure will be made clear at the start of the thread, and will need both debators agreement before it starts.
Anyhow, are there any takers, sincere believers, persuasive arguers, for the suggested motion ‘This house believes that to know of an afterlife, is to know thyself’. As a hint, there is a lot of scope for arguing the importance of dignity in life, a life with a prospect of an afterlife, being a life without deperation or fear, a bearable belief system. Or maybe a perspective bound closer to a specific religion. Do not be scared. No-one’s faith will be questioned or at stake. Any takers?
Okay, I’m interested; I’ll send my submission in by next Monday, as I’ll need the weekend to work on the argument. I’m against the motion, and will argue that this is untrue.
Pax Vitae
Sorry to dissapoint, but Skeptic seems to have bagged the opposition to this motion. I knew there’d be more demand to oppose it. I asked ‘for’ the motion. Maybe you could team up with Skeptic, or suggest an alternative motion. That is by no means the concrete motion. If you hold an unusual belief, you could maybe suggest proposing a motion, which would have many willing takers for the opposition.
A suggestion: 'This house believes that the meritocracy is reliant on the assumption that ‘people are born equal in dignity, rights and potential’
(that could go anywhere 
)
Incidentally Magius, thanks. I’d only want you to oppose the first motion if you really sincerely believe it, and are confident that you can put together a coherent and persuasive case for the proposition. It also needs the full attention and effort of the ‘competitor/debator’.
Any takers, for either motions? (I think the afterlife one could be interesting. If you know any articulate religious leaders or believers, do invite them on to propose, and get them in touch with me.)
Doh! Just my luck. But maybe all is not lost, a motion that I would like to argue for at the moment is:
The house believes that for a system of Laws to work, the law must be the manifestation of an accepted Morality.
Anybody interested in disputing this?
Hey, Hey!!! Now this is a surprise! You may have noticed that shortly after suggesting this thing I disappeared and ceased to take an active involvement! This is because I threw the topic into the help and suggestions forum and forgot that I had it mentioned here. This is a pleasant and funny surprise at the same time.
It has taken a completly different turn to that which I originally intended. Seeing as I am a member of the site for the politics and economics section as opposed to the philosophy (note that I have absolutly no posts under the philosophy section) this suggestion was originally based around politics and economics although I failed to mention it. Sorry.
The way that the debate about the establishment of this has gone about is exactly the way that I intended it to go for the “decision not discussion.” Note that no pols where taken and everyone was happy with the final product. This is proof in itself to the ability of us to come to a worked solution. The idea that a final product is unattainable only really held strong for the topics of philosophy, which is to be expected as that is the nature of the subject.
I now wish to resort back to my original suggestion so that we may, as was done with this discusion, come to decision which all parties invloved are happy with (ie steer clear of philosophy.) I can as of next october or so get extremly good access to the net and would be more than happy to regulate it. The primary objective would be to avoid the use of votes as I always feel that these leave people unhappy and lead to resentment. The use of two different sides is also contrary to the objective as it is to find a compremise where people are free to change their opinion as new info comes to light. Naturally, new info can always be found and thus peoples opinion can always be canged and for this reason I suggest the a date be set for a decision to be found. This can be versatile depending on how the discusion is going but ultimatly a final date encourages people to decide as opposed to continually dancing around the topic.
I’ll be gone for about 6 weeks so I’ll be back the to see how the DISCUSSION is going! C ya then!