Here's an idea I've stolen from another forum. We could have a one-on-one formal debate forum. The idea would be that any two members of sciforums could mutually agree to debate one another. There would be rules for the debate, and only the two participants could post to the debate thread. The debate would be post and time limited, so that the debate would have a defined end point. Other members would be free to discuss the debate in a separate thread, and that discussion would remain open. The rules for any particular debate would need to be agreed in advance by the two members involved. One member would offer to debate, and the other would have to accept the offer. Then, the rules would be negotiated. Moderators will then make sure that the debaters obey the rules in the thread set aside for the formal debate. At the end of the debate, that thread would be closed for posting. The formal debate forum will only contain threads for rule agreement negotiations, formal debates themselves and member discussion of related debate threads. Any other threads will be moved to more appropriate forums. To save time and effort in making special rules for each debate, I would suggest a set of "standard" rules, something along the lines of these: 1. The two debaters will each post one "introductory" post, setting out their main arguments. 2. There will then be exactly two follow-up and rebuttal posts from each debater, in which the debaters may address and refute points made by the other person, as well as adding any new points that may come up. 3. Finally, each poster will post one concluding post, summing up their side of the debate. Following the concluding posts, the thread will be closed. 4. Debaters each have exactly one day from the time of posting of a post by their opponent to post their next post. If they do not post in the required time limit, the debate will be declared finished, and the thread closed. 5. Debaters may not post more than 4 posts in total. Once the 4-post limit is reached, further posts by that debater will be deleted from the thread, but the thread will remain open for posts by the opponent, until either his or her own 4-post limit is reached or until time runs out. 6. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts. They may also quote extracted sections of text from other sites. 7. Individual posts may not be longer than 1500 words, including any quotes. I suggest that moderation of formal debate threads will be less strict than for the rest of the forum. This will allow the open but disciplined discussion of some of the "controversial" topics we get here, such as race, religion and politics. Thus, for example, "racist" links will not, except in exceptional circumstances, be deleted from any debate on race. I am interested in whether members think this is a good idea or not (please vote in the poll.) Also, if you have any suggested additions or changes to the "standard rules" above, please post them below. Note that individual debaters will always be allowed to either adopt all the standard rules or to vary them by agreement for their own debates. These rules are only guidelines.
I don't know what would motivate someone to actually do this, seems like a waste of time to me, but perhaps I lack vision.
No...this would encourage flame wars. and this alienated other people from participating...I mean my life is already un-sociable one, the reason I come to this forum is because I have no one to talk to, no friends, my family is far away, and here I come to the forum, only to be alone again?
I would like to suggest that, once someone has taken part in a debate, they only be allowed to post in that forum - ie, in other debates - from then on. May I never encounter a nerd again. But yeah. I mean, might work; might not. But, what the hell, give it a go. 's different innit. I'm not sure that the poll will give an accurate measure of support though. I mean, I'm in favour of it - fully knowing that I'll never use it. So the real question isn't "who thinks it's a good idea", but "who will actually use it?"
1. If two people are to agree on the rules of the debate, then they need to be so similar that any debate between them is impossible. Other than debating just for shits and jiggles. 2. If two people are to agree in advance on the rules of the debate, then the whole debate between them will have taken place prior to actually agreeing on the rules. By then, they'll probably lose the interest to continue. Bottomline - whereas I like the idea of a debate forum, I don't think it can be done meaningfully. It seems forced. Like two fighters figuring out the fight first in private, and then enacting it, step by step, according to their plan, in front of an audience.
I should think that generalised rules - no flaming; no baiting; provide appropriate evidence, etc. - should be sufficient for most purposes.
Yeah, and with increase moderation.. But between two posters. maybe have a poll in the discussion thread as to who people think is winning, The one with more votes by the end time wins the debate.. and gets what ? Infractions ?
