Just a thought. Maybe instead of just setting a topic to discuss all the time, we could set topics to be answered. That way we are argueing towards an end, and we might have to compromise and explain our points so instead of trying to argue your “side” of an arguement we just exchange info with an overall goal of getting a solution that we can all live with. For example, we can say, what would we do if we were in charge of solving the Iraqi crises. Do you think we could come to a solution or would we be as much in disagreeance as the security council? So what do you think? We could try a test run on some topic or other. Maybe set out some rules for voting etc. ?
I like this idea alot! A regulated debate would be awesome. I think that there should even be a forum devoted to it.
A person posts a challenge and awaits an opponent. When an opponent arrises, the debate begins.
Argument A
Argument B
Rebuttal A
Rebuttal B
. . . and so on. After the debate is finished. everyone else votes via a designated poll. Is anyone else interested in this?
you can never end an argument in philosophy it seems as often there is no accepted right answer just views. This is why it is so great but also so dam frustrating (im sure somebody can argue im wrong)
Hi,
I understand your point and it is sometimes frustrating to never get to an answer. However, in this forum I do not think it is beneficial to have some sort of ‘conclusion’ to a given argument. For what purpose? An ILovePhilosophy.com consensus on a given argument? I’m not sure how valuable that is (although admittedly rather intriguing). An important part of these forums, and philosophy at large, is for people to learn from what they read, to develop their ideas to further them in philosophy as a subject and in life. There are no definite answers in philosophy and although it could be possible to get a general consensus within a finite amount of people I don’t think it would help in the same way that putting forwards your opinions and reading others does.
I have no objection to someone starting that sort of thread in the forums but I’m not convinced it deserves a forum of it’s own. I think people should learn from the experience of posting and reading these forums, and although learning how to argue and discuss is important, i do not see it as valuable as a development of personal philosophy and beliefs.
of course i could be convinced otherwise 
- ben
That could be worthwhile experiment. You need active observers though, people who will definitely vote. It would also have to be very heavily moderated. Any takers? Go to the new moderators thread on this forum.
Every argument would HAVE to be as complete and clear a rebuttal or case as can be made. It should on quite an accessible issue as well. Animal rights? With a proposing motion?
Afterwards, an analysis can be made not just of the arguments, but of how well they stood up to each other, and whether a ‘higher truth’ was found as both cases engaged with each others. A real-world moral condundrum like animal rights could be quite good. Clear rules, or ‘forms of the house’ could be drawn up before it starts.
More brainstorming required. Mention this experimental thread on the Help & Suggestions forum, and I’ll get the staff talking about it.
I definitely understand your concern but I think you are taking the wrong perspective. It’s not really about coming to a definite conclusion or an ultimate truth. That would be a big “no no”, but a forum where one can go about a regulated and defined debate adds a competitive flare to ilp.com.
Take an atheism vs. theism debate for example. The point of the debate would not be to come to a definite conclusion but to see who has the better argument. So the poll would not be to gain a consensus on the issue but the quality of the arguments. Although the majority of ilp are atheists, the theist debater should still be able to win if he makes the better argument.
This is the tough part. Someone needs to develop “house rules”, and then anyone who judges must base their vote directly on those rules, opinions must be left at the door. I’ll take a look around the net and see if I can find an exemplary set of rules that might work.
What does everyone else think about this concept? Anybody else like it besides Pangloss, anon, and myself? (Ben, maybe you could slap a poll on this topic and see what everyone thinks? Is it possible to add a poll to a thread after the fact? I would guess that moderators have that ability.)
As long as I get the final say, that sounds a good idea
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