One on One Thread Debate Topics, Participants, "House Rules", and more

First, DO NOT POST ANY ONE ON ONE DEBATE THREADS YET.

We have recently been discussing having one on one debate threads in the Tavern. A poster (who is not debating) would serve as the "Chair"--this person would create the house rules, make sure participants are following the rules, report posts by non participants to the moderators, etc. A debate thread would have a poll where the peanut gallery (i.e the rest of us) can vote on who we think is winning.

For this thread, please post one of the following:

1) A topic worth debating
2) Your willingness to participate in such a thread, either as a debator, or as a chair (and if you have a particular favorite topic, etc)
3) What you think the "rules" should be (do we have a seperate commentary thread? Should quoting be allowed? Who goes first, whats the format, etc etc

In order for us to be allowed to do this, we'll need to run this *through* the OT moderating staff, so they'll have to approve each thread, just like an "ask a" thread. Let's keep discussion orderly in this thread, so we can start debates soon. Maybe if it goes well, we add a subforum. Who knows.

Ideas? GO!

I think its a great idea and would love to participate. However, I remain rather pessimistic of how the peanut gallery would rule given the healthy lib bias and overall agnst felt by some towards a few.

My suggestions: Keep the discussion limited to a set number of posts/replies and/or length. There has to be a finite end somewhere and if you cant make your argument prior to that you're sunk.

Also, I would think it interesting to assign topic sides non-traditionally. That is to say for example, assigning me the task of arguing a pro-atheist position, or Formaldehyde a pro-military one if such topics come up and the participants are willing. I think it takes a much more capable debater to argue a position he doesnt traditionally have any faith in, and such reversals will reveal much and also should be entertaining.

What about links/proof, etc? Do we want to clutter it up with that, or just rely on pure oratory?

MobBoss said:

What about links/proof, etc? Do we want to clutter it up with that, or just rely on pure oratory?

Click to expand...

I think pure oratory would be fun, but I don't know how we could pull it off. Without at least the ability to demand proof, people are going to start making some wild claims reguardless of the topic.

Also, peanut gallery? Thanks

One last thing:
I'll debate MobBoss on anything.

While I'd be interested in certain people debating each other, I myself probably wouldn't participate as a debater unless there were a history topic.

I'm probably boring enough to serve as a chair for political or economic janx, though, if one's required.

MobBoss said:

Also, I would think it interesting to assign topic sides non-traditionally. That is to say for example, assigning me the task of arguing a pro-atheist position, or Formaldehyde a pro-military one if such topics come up and the participants are willing. I think it takes a much more capable debater to argue a position he doesnt traditionally have any faith in, and such reversals will reveal much and also should be entertaining.

Click to expand...

This is a great idea!

In general I'd love to read one of these threads. The idea is very promising.

Dachs said:

While I'd be interested in certain people debating each other, I myself probably wouldn't participate as a debater unless there were a history topic.

I'm probably boring enough to serve as a chair for political or economic janx, though, if one's required.

Click to expand...

Could you chair a political/economic debate without interjecting youself too much? In the sense that you probably know more about these things than those debating them. I could see your corrections leading to big derailments!
Take this as a compliment, not a backhand insult.

This, and i am being honest and frank here, would be something that i believe would be used mostly and mainly by mobby and formy

What if people want to comment on who they think is winning and why?

useless said:

This, and i am being honest and frank here, would be something that i believe would be used mostly and mainly by mobby and formy

Click to expand...

Probably not seeing that at least now I have no real desire to participate at all in this sort of endeavor. But I might change my mind depending on how it goes.

It also sounds like something that should definitely be in the Chamber instead of the Tavern. What sort of proper debate allows you to troll or even engage in personal attacks?

Tycho Brahe said:

What if people want to comment on who they think is winning and why?

Click to expand...

IMO the comments should not be allowed except during designated comment times or else people will start debating for other ppl. And the debaters shouldn't be allowed to comment on the comments - for civility sake and to keep people from bringing up arguments for the debaters to use.

An exception should be made for JR to interject if he feels he has a blinder to add.

MobBoss said:

Also, I would think it interesting to assign topic sides non-traditionally. That is to say for example, assigning me the task of arguing a pro-atheist position, or Formaldehyde a pro-military one if such topics come up and the participants are willing. I think it takes a much more capable debater to argue a position he doesnt traditionally have any faith in, and such reversals will reveal much and also should be entertaining.

Click to expand...

That actually sounds really fun. Any of our atheists or conservatives wanna have a switcheroo with me?

hobbsyoyo said:

I think pure oratory would be fun, but I don't know how we could pull it off. Without at least the ability to demand proof, people are going to start making some wild claims reguardless of the topic.

Also, peanut gallery? Thanks

One last thing:
I'll debate MobBoss on anything.

Click to expand...

Get in line. I'm sure there are tons out there that would want to take a shot at me.

Anyway, its all in fun, so even if you trashed me out, big whoopee.

Formaldehyde said:

Probably not seeing that at least now I have no real desire to participate at all in this sort of endeavor. But I might change my mind depending on how it goes.

It also sounds like something that should definitely be in the Chamber instead of the Tavern. What sort of proper debate allows you to troll or even engage in personal attacks?

Click to expand...

Oh please. It'd be perfect for the tavern. As to your concerns about trolling or personal attacks, i'd leave that up to the chairperson(s) to decide. Not everything interpreted by you as a personal attack actually is one, and that being the case i'd be perfectly willing to have a third party adjudicate that.

That being said, no one would force you to participate and have fun.

Here's a hint: You don't see formal debates on TV during presidential election years, and you rarely see it in this forum.

Advice on Debating with Others

Avoid the use of Never.
Avoid the use of Always.
Refrain from saying you are wrong.
You can say your idea is mistaken.
Don't disagree with obvious truths.
Attack the idea not the person.
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
The use of often allows for exceptions.
The use of generally allows for exceptions.
Quote sources and numbers.
If it is just an opinion, admit it.
Do not present opinion as facts.
Smile when disagreeing.
Stress the positive.
You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
Concede minor or trivial points.
Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
Watch your tone of voice.
Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
Keep your perspective - You're just debating.

Click to expand...

This clearly belongs in the Chamber, or better yet an even more restrictive forum.

My thoughts:

First off, is this going to be a traditional style debate thing? Where your given a topic, and regardless of your stance, your job is to argue for it? Or are we going to do the "normal" style debate where you choose the side you agree with/believe/whatever and argue for it?

As for the rest of the stuff: Commentary should be in a seperate thread just to make the debate thread easier to read. No to quotes (there's only two people, so we know who's talking to who, also to make sure the infectious quote war doesn't kill its new host). Specifics should be decided in each thread (whether or not evidence is mandatory, who goes first, formal or free-for-all, amount of posts per day, etc.). GM (or chair, whatever you want to call them) influence should be minimal, unless the specific one-on-one thread calls for heavy interference (what exactly would that be?). It should be located in the Tavern, because that gives you the freedom to decide how heavily moderated it will be, if stuck in the Chamber you're railroaded to only doing heavily moderated ones.

As for participation, probably only if it's a topic I know well enough to actually debate without needing to do in-depth research. I also wouldn't mind being a GM in a less-regulated debate if I'm more or less neutral on the topic (oh yeah, GM's should be neutral on the debate they GM).

hobbsyoyo said:

Could you chair a political/economic debate without interjecting youself too much? In the sense that you probably know more about these things than those debating them. I could see your corrections leading to big derailments!
Take this as a compliment, not a backhand insult.

Click to expand...

I know the difference between refereeing an argument and participating in it.

I think this idea has promise. I've never participated in any sort of debate team event before, so maybe these are an issue, but here goes:

-I like the idea of having people argue counter to their positions, although I suspect that we'd have to have fairly long timelines on those threads for research.
-I think there should be an opportunity for the participants to respond to criticism from the audience at some point.
-I'm also somewhat skeptical of the strict one-on-one format; just because someone can't think of a counterargument offhand, does not mean that one does not exist.

I'd really like to see the resident lawyers argue something completely silly and frivolous in total seriousness.

form vs mobby! form vs mobby!

edit: more seriously, i'd actually love to see something like this. it's a great idea, and i don't see it going wrongly.

I would love to participate in this, in either aspect.

lord_joakim said:

form vs mobby! form vs mobby!

Click to expand...

That sounds like a normal thread to me.

See: This thread. Also, I'm game to chair if the topic interests me enough.